My name is Matt Haupert, and I couldn't be more excited about having the opportunity to work with you on your writing over the course of this semester! As a brief introduction, I'm currently a Junior Acting & English major at Drake University. After graduation I'm hoping to pursue some sort of career in either theatre or film, whether that be acting, writing, or directing. I have no idea what exactly I'll end up doing, but for that I am very excited!
Writing has always been a big passion of mine, and working on writing with others is probably the best part. Hopefully by the end of the semester, you'll have learned a little bit from me, I'll have learned a little bit from you, and we'll both be greatly improved writers! I'm excited to hear back from you, and even more excited to meet you in person. We have a really cool opportunity in getting to work with each other on this project - let's make the most of it!
Matt, I am excited to have the opportunity to work with you this semester and I hope this helps me in improving my writing skills. I plan on going to college for psychology as it is an area of study I am very interested in, however I have always had a passion for writing and conveying my ideas and perspectives to other people through writing. I am also interested in acting and theater so that is something that we have in common, I would someday love to be a playwrite or to be able to produce a movie from my ideas. I am very passionate about my ideas and opinions and I find enjoyment in expressing them through creative writing. This semester I hope to improve my writing skills and my ability to convey my messages, as well as improving my mechanics and understanding of rhetorical techniques. The biggest challenges I have overcome, are accepting the advice of others and applying it to my work, rather than taking advice as an offense. I've accepted that not all of my writing is perfect and I am excited to hear how it can be improved.
Sincerely,
Brianna
Personal Reflection on Topic of Inquiry(posted RHS January 27 -- 171 January 29)
Junior High for most is a time of change, and most do not look back on it with fond emotions. During my Junior High years I was faced with a situation that most may not even understand, and still makes me think to this day (Makes you think about what? And it feels like you're making two different points with your first two sentences - how does the second sentence tie in to the first?) . My parents separated my sixth grade year, my seventh they attempted at working things out, and finally my eighth grade year after what seemed like an eternity through Hell my parents divorced. Fifty percent of American households are divorced, but fifty percent of children have not had a parent attempt suicide. (I understand what you're saying here, and I really love that you're finishing the paragraph with some shock value, but your wording is a little unclear. Did one of your parents attempt suicide? I assumed that's what you meant the first time I read it, and obviously it becomes clear later. However, since this is the first time you mention it, it seems to come out of nowhere and is a little confusing. How can you rework that last sentence to make sure your readers know your father attempted suicide, which is something most people don't have to deal with?)
My memories from these years are clouded and many of them I have blocked from remembering, however I can't forget the days I spent visiting my dad at Lutheran Hospital's in-patient care facility. I didn't learn the reason for him being committed until long after. (When did he committed to the facility? And at the time, what did you think he was doing there? Make sure the reader knows what's going on before you dive into the story - I found myself asking questions like 'what hospital?' 'what happened?' 'why is he there?' 'is he physically or mentally ill?'.. How can you set up the story so this is all a little more clear?) I recall walking through a heavy white security door being guided by a nurse. The nurse pointed to the plastic bag in my mom's hand. She told my mom that she couldn't bring the bag in, because any of the patients could use it to harm themselves. (What plastic bag?) At long last after months without seeing my dad, I caught a glimpse of him from behind the nurse. He was dressed in grey sweats, as all the other patients were, with blue socks whos color screamed their clinical origin. I must admit that excitement to see my dad was not the emotion I was feeling at the sight of his slouching frame, I felt the person sitting in front of me was not my father at all. He was not the lively caring man who tickled me till I cried with laughter, nor the man who brought me doughnuts when he worked night shifts at Firestone tire factory, nor did it seem that he felt anything at all. (This is a really great description of your father.. showing the contrast between the lively, caring father and the father that didn't feel anything at all is really powerful! But what happened next? Did you talk to him? What'd he say? I'm really engaged and want to know how the rest of the visit went, and how it ties into your overall message, but you skip right to when he's released.)
Six months later my dad had been released, I am sitting in the kitchen with my face planted on the table, tears streaming down my face (Why do you switch to present tense here? It makes it a lot more confusing to follow along.). My dad is opposite to me, this is the first time I've seen him face-to-face without my mother's intrusion (Why do you say 'intrusion'? Did you have a bad relationship with her? Did she get in the way of your relationship with your father?). He looks into my eyes as I peer up at him from beneath my hair, and he tells me about a young girl he knew at Lutheran Hospital. (Who is this 'young girl'? How does she relate to the story?) You see, my dad just got word that I have been the victim on severe self harm. (Were you inflicting self harm because you were having difficulty dealing with your father's situation? Or was it something unrelated?) I never wished to hurt my dad, but this news gave him the disposition of watered down jell-o. This is when I realized that my self destruction affected more than just myself, it affected my father, the man who I cared and still care very deeply about; his feelings reflect those of my own. (You have some really great imagery here! The storytelling is a bit confusing, though - is your paper about your father and his situation, or about you and the way you dealt with it? Or is it about your relationship with him? It feels like it sort of shifts between these, which is hard to follow. Could you make the paper more effective by just picking one focus and sticking with that?)
Two years after I visited my dad at the in-patient care facility I am standing at his bedroom door, having a solemn conversation, I no longer live with my mom (I didn't know you lived with your mom before- make sure you fill the readers in with details like that.) My dad has just gotten word that if I choose to live with him full-time that my mom is going to court to file violation of their custody agreement. I hadn't seen my dad this upset in a long time, he reveals to me the true reason he was committed at Lutheran hospital, he attempted suicide. That moment hit me like a ton of bricks hitting solid concrete, I could only stare blankly into the space above his head. The years between my parent's split and the day that my dad reveals his secret, I was filled with suicidal thoughts, bouts of sever self harm, and periods where I would lay in bed not capable of doing anything (What was it exactly that led to this? How and why did these thoughts start?). My dad tells me that the reason he wanted to end his life was because he thought he had lost me forever (Why did he think that?), and I was his only reason to continue living.
Today I came home to my dad putting on a gold chain and referring to himself as Father Pickle (because of a toy pickle that yodels when you press a button on its side, which he takes with him when he sings karaoke.) We both laugh and smile, tell each other that we love each other, and I say goodbye to him as he goes to meet his friends; I sit down and write this essay, I reflect on how I am my father's reason for living, just as he is my reason for living. My father is a phoenix; The days at Lutheran were his last days living his old withered life, and I was the fire that caused him to be reborn. (This is really cool idea - nice way to finish the essay! Remember though that the assignment asks you to "write a narrative that ends with a question about your chosen topic of inquiry." What's your question?)
Brianna-
I'm really impressed with the work you've done so far! You've got some great imagery in there which makes it really interesting to read. Your emotion and passion for what you're writing really shows, which makes it very engaging and powerful. It'd be hard to read this essay without really feeling something and being moved by your story.
The one thing you really need to work on to make this even more effective is making sure readers are able to follow the story. You start off pretty ambiguously in your first paragraph, which is fine as long as you fill in the details after that. However, I felt like those details were missing a lot of the time. If I already knew a little bit about your situation, I would know exactly what was going on. But you have to remember that readers won't know ANYTHING about you - several of the questions/comments I included in the essay point out specific places that you should think of this.
Another thing that makes it a bit confusing is the way you really jump around between different times - you go from visiting your father in the hospital, to six months later, to two years later... when you make such big jumps you have to make sure you very clearly establish what the situation is at the new time. For example.. "Two years after I visited my dad... I am standing at his bedroom door, having a solemn conversation, I no longer live with my mom." Immediately I start wondering things like - what happened over those two years? Why'd she move out of her mom's house? What's this solemn conversation about - am I supposed to know what is going on with them?' On a somewhat unrelated note - I'd be very careful about choosing to switch between past and present tense. When you start saying "I am sitting" instead of "I was sitting" it gets really confusing.
I loved reading this essay... it is very personal, and a lot of times writing something that is really personal is very hard to do! It's always great to see writing that is passionate and straight from the heart. I can't wait to see more of your writing throughout the semester!
Rough Draft Definition (posted RHS February 3 -- 171 February 5)
Suicide, by definition, is the act of taking ones own life, but suicide takes so much more than that. By extinguishing your life you are also removing yourself from the lives of those who love and care about you. Suicide can be an act of desperation, religious fanaticism, societal expectations (you're saying suicide can be an "act of societal expectations", what do you mean? an act of conforming to societal expectations? an act of rebelling against societal expectations? or something else?), or as a means of euthanasia (is it really a MEANS of euthanasia? or is euthanasia a means of suicide?). Over one million people die because of suicide each year, and it is one of the leading causes of death in teenagers and adults under thirty five. For those who don't succeed in committing suicide there are an estimated ten to twenty million attempted suicides each year. Suicide, however, is much more than just a statistic (this is a great point - why don't you refer back to it more often? you gives us a lot more facts than personal/emotional anecdotes).
There are many different reasons that people decide to take their lives, some people are driven by extreme political views, such as suicide bombers or kamikaze pilots; others are driven by society to take their lives. Sati is a Hindu funeral practice in which the widow was expected to immolate herself on her late husband's funeral pyre. This practice has since been outlawed. To some, suicide is a comfort. To those suffering from terminal illness, death is the escape from their every day suffering, called euthanasia. (To me it feels like this paragraph doesn't really add anything new to the essay, but just repeats the first paragraph with a few more specifics. What are you trying to add with this paragraph?)
During World War II, Kamikaze pilots would sacrifice their lives for their country by attempting to crash their planes to destroy enemy forces. A similar practice in seen in the Islamic rules of warfare, in which people would bomb enemies killing themselves in the process. Many other suicide bombings have occurred in different counties around the world.
For others, suicide is something done out of shame, or it is expected of them by the society they live in. This is called dutiful suicide. It is preformed for a variety of reasons, such as the practice of Seppuku in Japanese culture. Seppuku is the act of eviscerating ones self in a ritualistic manner, this is typically only preformed by samurai out of honor or shame. In the Hindu culture, Sati is a religious funeral practice that has been outlawed, where the widow would be expected to immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre. It was done by choice, if not, the women were often pressured to do so by their peers. This practice was outlawed by the British in 1829. (Do you think Kamikaze pilots and those practicing Seppuku and Sati have the right to take their lives? Is it okay to commit suicide if you have strong religious justification for it? Or if it's for the greater good of your country? These types of suicide you're talking about are very different than what most people today think of when they hear "suicide" .. but is there really that much of a difference?)
Euthanasia is a subject that is not often touched on, due to religious and political disagreement in the United States. Doctor Jack Kevorkian was given a ten to twenty five year prison sentence after assisting around one hundred and thirty patients in committing suicide. He claimed, 'dying is not a crime.' Recently the topic of euthanasia has resurfaced, as it is now legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Though the people who choose to take their lives must fit strict guidelines and must be able to take the drug themselves, they cannot be assisted by others. For these people, suicide is an escape from suffering. It is a relief, and it is a right they should be allowed to. (This is a really big claim you're making - do people really have the "right" to choose when to die? How is this any different from someone taking his life as a "relief" from emotional pain (depression, loneliness, etc)? There's really a fine line there.. I'd like to hear more about why you're making this argument.)
When most think of suicide, thoughts of angst ridden teenagers and depressed housewives. Unfortunately this is the reality for many people throughout the United States, and the world (you mean it's a reality that most suicides are teenagers and depressed housewives? or it's a reality that most people THINK that's the case? either way, I'd like to hear more about it since it's what most people think of when they hear "suicide"). Suicide brought on by mental illness is a painful and difficult road, and touches people very personally. Suicide caused by mental illness includes but is not limited to depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, mood disorders, and drug abuse. People often take this rout believing they have no other choices, when there are ways out all around them (like what?). Committing suicide under these terms may even be considered selfish, imagine being a child and having to lose a parent because that parent didn't believe in a future, even for you (are you referencing your own situation with your father? this would be a good place to expand on the claim you made earlier - "suicide is more than a statistic". do you think it's selfish? how did it personally affect you when your father tried and failed? how are others emotionally affected when someone commits suicide, or tries and fails?). There are many therapies available for those with mental disorders, and there are many options for those who feel the need to take their lives.
Suicide is tragic in most of its forms. (most? are there times when suicide is not tragic?) It effects people the the most permanent way we know, death. Some do not have the ability to keep their lives, others do but choose not to. Would you be willing to kill yourself out of honor, shame, or desperation? Many have, many have failed, all are tragic. (I really like how you finished this essay - the question you ask the reader at the end is very powerful/provoking!)
Great job, Brianna! It's a really well organized, engaging and informational piece of writing. While reading it, it seemed like you felt sort of constricted by the actual assignment. You were asked to write a "definition" essay - to define and explain a specific word, and use examples to better show your reader what that word means. I think this caught you in a bit of a trap - because you were trying to "define" a word you spent a lot of your time talking about factual details (like information on Kamikazes & Seppuku, suicide statistics, etc). The spots where your paper is the best, however, are the places where you really emotionally connect to the reader - like when you remind us suicide is more than a statistic, when you ask the reader to imagine being a child losing a parent, and when you finish the paper with "would you be willing to kill yourself out of honor, shame or desperation?" Maybe the best way to 'define' something as emotionally traumatizing as suicide is not just to give us all the facts and history, but to show us the emotional side of things. Why do people do it? How are others affected? As a person who has experienced a parent attempting suicide, you know a lot more about the emotional effects of suicide than most people. Share those with us, and that's when we'll start to "get it" about suicide.
This is not to say that you should get rid of the facts & the history - it's all very interesting. These are just some ideas of what you might want to add into the essay to make it even more powerful. If you can balance the facts with personal stories & opinions that might get more of an emotional reaction, I think you'll end up with a really great essay that does even more than just "define".
Really nice work - once again, I loved being able to sense your passion coming through in your writing. Can't wait to see where this essay goes from here! Let me know if you have any questions!
Matt
Revision Definition (posted RHS February 10 -- 171 February 12 ) Suicide, by definition, is the act of taking ones own life, but suicide takes so much more than that. By extinguishing your life you are also removing yourself from the lives of those who love and care about you. Suicide can be an act of desperation, religious fanaticism, societal expectations, or as a means of euthanasia. Imagine your friends, family and neighbors encouraging you to take your life because they believe that is the proper way to mourn the death on your husband. Imagine being in such great pain that your only escape is through ending your life. Over one million people die because of suicide each year, and it is one of the leading causes of death in teenagers and adults under thirty five. For those who don't succeed in committing suicide there are an estimated ten to twenty million attempted suicides each year. Suicide, however, is much more than just a statistic (I really like this first paragraph.. it gets me excited about what's to come in the rest of the paper, you really hooked me!)
During World War II, Kamikaze pilots would sacrifice their lives for their country by attempting to crash their planes to destroy enemy forces. A similar practice in seen in the Islamic rules of warfare, in which people would bomb enemies killing themselves in the process. Many other suicide bombings have occurred in different counties around the world. This practice is not new, there are occurrences of sacrificing one's own life for their country, religion, or rebellious groups like the IRA and Al Queida. (Do you think committing suicide for your country/religion/etc could be considered more honorable than a typical suicide? After all, they are "sacrificing" their own lives for what they consider the "greater good". It's an interesting thing to think about, because they obviously think they're completely justified and actually doing something noble.) What would posses someone to sacrifice their lives for such an extreme cause? These organizations are manipulating their followers to commit the post permanent self destructive act possible. (So do you think most suicide bombers are doing it because they're "manipulated"? Are there any who do it willingly because they actually think it's the right thing to do?) While taking their own lives their goal is also to take the lives of others. This act of murder and suicide is a tragedy. The leaders of these groups use these individuals as a disposable resource to expand their regime, while erasing lives that people loved and cared for. How many of these suicide bombers make up part of that one million?
For others, suicide is something done out of shame, or it is expected of them by the society they live in. This is called dutiful suicide. It is preformed for a variety of reasons, such as the practice of Seppuku in Japanese culture. Seppuku is the act of eviscerating ones self in a ritualistic manner, this is typically only preformed by samurai out of honor or shame. In the Hindu culture, Sati is a religious funeral practice that has since been outlawed by the British in 1829, where the widow would be expected to immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre. It was done by choice, if not, the women were often pressured to do so by their peers. Seppuku was commonly committed by samurai to be taken as prisoners of war, where they would be tortured mercilessly and killed. Should a samurai be shamed, they would be expected to eviscerate themselves so as not to shame their people. Do these people have the right to take their lives? How many of them would have chosen to keep their lives had they not been pressured by society? (You ask a lot of open-ended questions in this draft. I really like that, you get me to really think... but I'm really curious about how you would answer some of these - how could you use your own opinions to even better illustrate what you're trying to say?) How many of the people who have committed suicide over the years were victims of Sati or Seppuku?
Euthanasia is a subject that is not often touched on, due to religious and political disagreement in the United States. Doctor Jack Kevorkian was given a ten to twenty-five year prison sentence after assisting around one hundred and thirty patients in committing suicide. He claimed, 'dying is not a crime.' Recently the topic of euthanasia has resurfaced, as it is now legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Though the people who choose to take their lives must fit strict guidelines and must be able to take the drug themselves, they cannot be assisted by others. For these people, suicide is an escape from suffering. It is a relief, and it is a right they should be allowed to. Unlike others who still have a chance to make a difference in the world, these people are at the end of their lives (So do you think people have less "worth" once they are near the end of their lives? What if a teenager doesn't think he can make a difference or doesn't want to make a difference - shouldn't he be allowed to end his life too? Who gets to decide when someone isn't going to make a difference in the world anymore? I'm just playing devil's advocate here to get you to explore your argument even more deeply.) They have nothing more they can do except live in pain, unable to do the things they love. How many suicides are an act of euthanasia?
When most think of suicide, thoughts of angst ridden teenagers and depressed housewives, however depression and mental illness is a harsh reality for many different people throughout the world. (This opening sentence confused me a little bit - are you going to talk about teenagers/housewives or depression/mental illness? How do those two pairs relate?) Mental illness does not discriminate, it can effect any race, any age, and any social background anywhere in the world. Both genetics and environment come into play. Suicide brought on by mental illness is a painful and difficult road, and touches people very personally (Would you say this type of suicide that touches people more personally than others?). Suicide caused by mental illness includes but is not limited to depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, mood disorders, and drug abuse. People often take this rout believing they have no other choices, when there are ways out all around them, such as therapy, group support, anti-psychotic medications, and support from both friends and family. Suicide can be considered selfish, imagine being a child and having to lose a parent because that parent didn't believe in a future, even for you. How many people out of that one million had children? Could losing a parent drive a child to committing suicide? This act is needless waste of life. Imagine being a healthy individual, how would you explain to a blind man that you do not value your sight? What about a deaf man? Someone who is paralyzed? (This is a really cool idea, but it's kind of unclear where exactly you're going with it - could you expand/explain yourself a little better so we know what exactly you're trying to say with this image?) How many of that one million were young healthy individuals with years of life ahead of them?
Suicide is tragic in all of its forms. It effects people the the most permanent way we know, death. Some do not have the ability to keep their lives, others do but choose not to. Would you be willing to kill yourself out of honor, shame, or desperation? Many have, many have failed, all are tragic.
Brianna -
I can tell you've really made some progress in this second draft. Make sure you proofread really carefully for your final draft - there were a few misspellings/typos scattered throughout that you'll want to clean up just to make it easier to read. In addition, try reading your paragraphs out loud after writing them - its a really easy way to tell how clear & concise your sentences/phrasing are.
You definitely engaged the reader a lot more in this one, both with all the questions you asked and with the more emotional anecdotes you used throughout. For your next draft, don't be afraid of giving us your own opinions. You ask a lot of questions but we don't get to see that much about what you think. As long as you really back up what you're saying, personal opinions can be a great way of getting a point across/telling a story. In the places where you do give us your opinions, try to go even further - really convince us that what you're saying is right. For example, you say "this act is a needless waste of life" -- we get your strong opinion on suicide (and an opinion that most would agree with) -- but then I want to hear more about why you think that.
See you in class Monday!
Matt
Final Definition (posted RHS February 17 -- 171 February 19 )
Suicide, by definition, is the act of taking ones own life, but suicide takes so much more than that. By extinguishing your life you are also removing yourself from the lives of those who love and care about you. Suicide can be an act of desperation, religious fanaticism, societal expectations, or as a means of euthanasia. Imagine your friends, family and neighbors encouraging you to take your life because they believe that is the proper way to mourn the death on your husband. Imagine being in such great pain that the only escape is through ending your life. Over one million people die because of suicide each year, and it is one of the leading causes of death in teenagers and adults under thirty five. For those who don't succeed in committing suicide there are an estimated ten to twenty million attempted suicides each year. Suicide, however, is much more than just a statistic.
During World War II, Kamikaze pilots would sacrifice their lives for their country by attempting to crash their planes to destroy enemy forces. A similar practice in seen in the Islamic rules of warfare, in which people would bomb enemies killing themselves in the process. Many other suicide bombings have occurred in different counties around the world. This practice is not new, there are occurrences of sacrificing one's own life for their country, religion, or rebellious groups like the IRA and Al Queida. What would posses someone to sacrifice their lives for such an extreme cause? These organizations convince their followers to commit the most permanent self-destructive act possible. Are there not more peaceful ways to act for their cause? There are, but they choose not to because they believe there is no other way. Think of how different the world would be without suicide bombings. ("...they believe there is no other way" - this is an interesting thought, because it seems to apply to basically every form of suicide... how can you expand on this to really add to your "definition" of suicide? Why do you think people "believe there is no other way" other than taking their own lives? Are there actually any other ways, or is suicide sometimes the best option?)
Suicide bombers, while taking their own lives also have the goal to take the lives of others. This act of murder and suicide is a tragedy. The leaders of these groups use these individuals as a disposable resource to expand their regime, while erasing lives that people loved and cared for. How many of these suicide bombers make up part of that one million?
For others, suicide is something done out of shame, or it is expected of them by the society they live in. This is called dutiful suicide. It is preformed for a variety of reasons, such as the practice of Seppuku in Japanese culture. Seppuku is the act of eviscerating ones self in a ritualistic manner, this is typically only preformed by samurai out of honor or shame. In the Hindu culture, Sati is a religious funeral practice that has since been outlawed by the British in 1829, where the widow would be expected to immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre. It was done by choice, if not, the women were often pressured to do so by their peers. Seppuku was commonly committed by samurai to be taken as prisoners of war, where they would be tortured mercilessly and killed. (This was kind of confusing to me.. you start talking about Seppuku, then move on to Sati, but then switch right back to Seppuku.. is there a better way to organize this so readers stay focused on what you're saying rather than jumping back and forth?) Should a samurai be shamed, they would be expected to eviscerate themselves so as not to shame their people. Do these people have the right to take their lives? How many of them would have chosen to keep their lives had they not been pressured by society? To take your life in an honorable manor rather than to be taken prisoner and tortured would be an optimal option, however, to take your life out of shame would be a most miserable choice to have to make. (Interesting - you describe suicide as an "optimal option" in this specific instance - are you saying that suicide is actually justified in this situation? Wouldn't it be even more noble to accept the torture? What about suicide bombings - suicide bombers think they're dying honorably, so why isn't that an "optimal option"? You seem to define this type of suicide differently than you define the other types, so I'd really like to hear why you do this. It's definitely an interesting aspect of the paper!) How many of the people who have committed suicide over the years were victims of Sati or Seppuku?
Euthanasia is a subject that is not often touched on, due to religious and political disagreement in the United States. Doctor Jack Kevorkian was given a ten to twenty-five year prison sentence after assisting around one hundred and thirty patients in committing suicide. He claimed, "dying is not a crime." Recently the topic of euthanasia has resurfaced, as it is now legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Though the people who choose to take their lives must fit strict guidelines and must be able to take the drug themselves, they cannot be assisted by others. For these people, suicide is an escape from suffering. It is a relief, and it is a right they should be allowed to. Unlike others who still have a chance to make a difference in the world, these people are at the end of their lives. This isn't to say that these people have no worth to society, it simply means that they have the right to die in a peaceful manner, rather than in pain and unable to communicate or remember things. A young person has a long life yet to live, and have no chances of dying naturally within the near future unless they are suffering from a terminal illness. For these people, euthanasia is finding peace. They have nothing more they can do except live in pain, unable to do the things they love. How many suicides are an act of euthanasia? (You've really done a lot to bolster your argument on euthanasia, and you've done it without adding tons of extra fluff to your paper - nice work!)
Depression and mental illness is a harsh reality for many different people throughout the world. Mental illness does not discriminate, it can effect any race, any age, and any social background anywhere in the world. Both genetics and environment come into play. Suicide brought on by mental illness is a painful and difficult road, and touches people very personally. It effects people on an emotional level, and effects how people function as well as their relationships with others. (How does it do this? How does it touch people, affect people, and affect how they function?) Suicide caused by mental illness includes but is not limited to depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, mood disorders, and drug abuse. People often take this rout believing they have no other choices, when there are ways out all around them, such as therapy, group support, anti-psychotic medications, and support from both friends and family. Suicide could even be considered selfish. (It could be considered selfish... but is it? Don't be afraid to make a strong statement as long as you back it up!) Imagine being a child and having to lose a parent because that parent didn't believe in a future, even for you. There are people who rely on them, care about them, and would be devastated to lose them. How many people out of that one million had children? Could losing a parent drive a child to committing suicide? This act is needless waste of life. Imagine being a healthy individual, how would you explain to a blind man that you do not value your sight? What about a deaf man? Someone who is paralyzed? These people live lives without major senses, without limbs, and some are unable to move without assistance. Imagine having to explain to those disabled people that you do not value your sight, hearing, or the ability to walk. (This makes a lot more sense now that you've reworded it, but I think you can expand on it even a bit more just because it's a really cool idea - how could you tie this idea back into your definition of suicide / what does this anecdote add to your definition of suicide? If you could really get the overall meaning of this anecdote across to your readers, I think it could be even more relevant and make more of an impact.) How many of that one million were young healthy individuals with years of life ahead of them?
Suicide is tragic in all of its forms. It effects people the the most permanent way we know, death. Some do not have the ability to keep their lives, others do but choose not to. There are many different motivations for one to take their life, such as honoring their country or religion, to mourn, or to relieve suffering. Would you be willing to kill yourself out of honor, shame, or desperation? Many people have committed suicide, any more have failed, but all are tragic
Brianna -
You've made some really good progress with this draft. All your arguments are a lot more convincing and you make some really interesting and well thought out points in the paper. I think you've really got a good set of ideas & opinions laid out in this draft - as you prepare the final copy that you'll turn in to your teacher, try to think about how you can expand & go even deeper with the ideas that you've already started to put on paper. What can you say that will make it harder for someone to disagree with you? The majority of my questions in this draft are focused on just this - I tried to point out where you said something really interesting and then challenge what you said to get you to think about it a little further and bolster your claims even more. The more you can think about the opposing opinion, the more you'll be able to say to back up yours.
There are still some times when you seem afraid to really make a statement, for example, you say "Suicide could even be considered selfish." - saying it "could be" considered selfish isn't really saying anything at all. Why don't you just say whether or not it's selfish? If you can follow a claim like this up with really strong reasoning/evidence/examples, then it will be very powerful. Papers that say things that can be disagreed with are the most interesting papers to read - so trust that, and trust that it's okay to make a statement if you support it.
This paper has really come together. You give us a lot of interesting information and really paint a picture of what suicide is and what it means to you. As you put together that final draft for your teacher, try to use the questions I asked in the paper to spark some new perspectives and new ways of thinking about things - if you do this and it shows in your writing, I think you'll see some exciting results.
Matt
Reflection #1 (posted RHS February 20 -- 171 February 22) The purpose of my writing was to communicate the impact that suicide has on it's victims. I believe I I met this purpose successfully. My intended audience includes people who are uneducated about suicide and have not felt the emotional impact that it has on its victims. To adapt my writing appeal to this audience I tried to be informational and informative as well as trying to put the audience in the victim's shoes using emotional appeal. I chose this topic because suicide is something I have a lot of experience with and I believe that not many people are educated about how or why it happens. My writing draws attention to the key aspects of my message by questioning the reader as well as giving my own response. I used emotional appeal as well as being descriptive. I created tone my questioning the reader and adding my own emotions and opinions into the writing.
Rough Draft Comparison (posted RHS February 24 -- 171 February 26 )
Murder and suicide. They are synonymous with death, however the differences are outstanding. Both produce the same result, but those who commit these two crimes have very different motives. One succeeds to take the life of another, one succeeds to take the life of himself. These acts are similar yet different. This is a great idea of two things to compare - but how can you hook me in more as a reader with this first paragraph? Reading this now I just get the very basic and commonly understood differences between murder and suicide. Could you give me a hint of what your opinions might be, or what I might learn or understand by reading your essay?
When comparing murder and suicide one obvious similarity is its product; death. Both involve the taking of a life and the victimization of innocent people. But is this always the case? Aren't a lot of people murdered because they are not innocent? And can you really call suicide the "victimization of innocent people" when the person must decide to do it himself? These acts also effect its victims in similar ways, families must due without loved ones and must suffer through loss. How is the suffering different for a family whose loved one was murdered as opposed to a family whose loved one committed suicide? This also effects the loved ones of those who commit both crimes. The friends and family of a murderer must deal with the fact that their loved one has committed a terrible crime, and those who have lost a loved one through suicide suffer the pain of the act that they have committed. Those who commit murder and those who commit suicide may also suffer from similar mental disorders. It's interesting to think that a mental disorder might lead one person to take his own life, while leading another person to take someone else's life... how is this possible? Are they really the same mental disorders, just affecting people in different ways? I'd love to hear more about this. So should murder and suicide be viewed in a similar manor? Should it be illegal to commit suicide and should those who commit it be treated in the same way as those who commit murder? You tell me! Do you view them in a similar manner? Why? There's a lot of room for your own opinions here, don't be afraid to share them. They effect people in a similar manor, however their differences must be taken into consideration as well.
While murder and suicide have many similar characteristics they also have many outstanding differences. Typically murder does not result in the death of the person committing the crime, but in the case of suicide it is typical that the person committing the act will die, as that is their ultimate goal. Another difference is that in suicide, the person is the victim as well as the one committing the act. In murder, two people are involved instead of just one. Should this make a difference in how we view murder and suicide? Yes and no. Why do you say "yes and no"? Can you get more specific about how you think they should be viewed? It seems like how we view suicide and murder similarly and differently is a focus of your essay, but you keep just mentioning it and then moving on to something else. These would be great places for you to expand and paint a much clearer picture of how you think we should view it. Both are considered crimes but they are handled very differently. Murderers go to prison while those who commit suicide are shipped off to mental wards in hospitals. Do you mean those who try and fail to commit suicide? Why should murderers be sent to prison if they commit their crime due to a mental disorder just as a suicidal person is? So do you think murderers should go to mental wards, or do you think suicidal people should be sent to prison? Should they be treated equally? If so, which way should they all be treated? And if not, why? What's the difference? You already have some great ideas - you just need to explore those ideas more deeply. Really think about what you believe, and why you believe it, then share that with us.
These crimes are both very serious as well as permanent. They share their similarities and differences. Motives differ but at the same time could be considered the same. Murder and suicide go hand in hand but branch out on their own paths.
Brianna,
You've definitely come up with a very interesting topic for this comparison essay, and I'm excited to see where you go from here. People often times forget how similar murder and suicide really are.
I can tell you've got some really interesting ideas here, you just need to find places that you can start to flesh these ideas out a little more. Right now what happens a lot is you'll mention something briefly but then move on before really talking about it. For example, in the second paragraph you say "Those who commit murder and those who commit suicide may also suffer from similar mental disorders." This is a very interesting statement that I would really like to hear about, but then you move on to something else and never come back to it. You also ask a lot of questions - such as "Why should murderers be sent to prison if they commit their crime due to a mental disorder just as a suicidal person is?" - that are very though provoking, but don't go any deeper into the topic. Find the places in this paper when you're making a strong and potentially controversial claim, or asking a particularly provocative question, and get into deeper detail. Explain what you're thinking and convince us show us what it means & why it matters.
I think you'll find that you've already got a great starting point that could lead to an extremely interesting paper. I tried to ask you a lot of questions that will hopefully help provoke your thinking and help you approach the comparison on a deeper & more critical level. Hopefully this will help you get past that "brain lock-down" and help you expand your own thinking about the issue!
Matt - BriannaT3 Feb 27, 2012- BriannaT3 Feb 27, 2012- BriannaT3 Feb 27, 2012- BriannaT3 Feb 27, 2012~
I'm sincerely sorry about how late this assignment is. It's been hard for me to figure out what to write about and I am having a lot of trouble developing my ideas. I'm hoping that I can expand on this because I love the idea of these two things being compared, but my brain seems to be on lock-down at the moment. Again I am very sorry about my procrastination.
- Brianna
Revision Comparison (posted RHS March 2 -- 171 March 4)
Murder and suicide are synonymous with death, however the differences are outstanding. Both produce the same result, but those who commit these two crimes may have very different motives. One succeeds to take the life of another while one succeeds to take the life of himself. A certain individual may be driven by a debilitating mental disorder, out of passion, or because they simply believe there is no other answer.
When comparing murder and suicide one obvious similarity is its product; death. Both involve the taking of a life and the victimization of people. These acts also effect its victims in similar ways, families must due without loved ones and must suffer through loss. This also effects the loved ones of those who commit both crimes. The friends and family of a murderer must deal with the fact that their loved one has committed a terrible crime, and those who have lost a loved one through suicide suffer the pain of the act that they have committed. Those who commit murder and those who commit suicide may also suffer from similar mental disorders. A person who suffers from schizophrenia might kill themselves as a result of their disorder, but the possibility of a schizophrenic murdering someone during an episode is also a possibility. How might schizophrenia lead someone to commit either suicide or a murder? Why would this same disorder cause such different results in different people? It's a fascinating topic, but I don't know much about it as a reader so I really want to know more - make sure you really get in depth when you introduce new topics like this! Antisocial Personality Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder may yield the same results. Depending on the circumstances the sufferer is under, different results are possible with the same mental disorder. Again - why and how? Looking at how these disorders affect murder and suicide differently will be a great opportunity for you to highlight their similarities and differences, so take advantage of that by expanding on the topic! So should murder and suicide be viewed in a similar manor? Should it be illegal to commit suicide and should those who commit it be treated in the same way as those who commit murder? The court system often mishandles cases involving the mentally ill, convicting people for acts they committed while not in a sound state of mind. In these cases, the perpetrator should be evaluated by a mental health professional and given the correct treatment. However, should the person be in a sound state of mind they should be convicted for their crimes and serve the proper sentence. But what is the "correct treatment?" And how can you determine what exactly is a "sound state of mind?" What if someone falls somewhere in between "mentally ill" and "sound state of mind," or what if someone pretends to be more mentally ill than they really are? I'm not convinced it's as black and white as you're making it seem - could you expand more on this to really convince me that this is a good way of determining a murderer's/suicide victim's punishment? Another motivation for both murder and suicide is the belief that there is no other answer. Sometimes a person comes to the conclusion that they have no other option than to commit murder or suicide. A person may believe that their life cannot possibly improve and that suicide is the only way to escape from their suffering. This also applies to murder in the sense that some people believe the only solution to their problems is by killing another person. Do you think this is a justified reason to commit a murder/suicide? Why/why not? Don't be afraid to use your own opinions when they'll add to your argument.
While murder and suicide have many similar characteristics they also have many outstanding differences. Typically murder does not result in the death of the person committing the crime, but in the case of suicide it is typical that the person committing the act will die, as that is their ultimate goal. Another difference is that in suicide, the person is the victim as well as the one committing the act. In murder, two or more people are involved instead of just one. Should this make a difference in how we view murder and suicide? Yes. Both are considered crimes but they are handled very differently, and should be. Murderers go to prison while those who fail at committing suicide are shipped off to mental wards in hospitals. The reason for this is that murderers are committing violent acts and are a danger to the people around them. Someone who fails at committing suicide is only a danger to themselves and require treatment to improve their mental condition. Why should murderers be sent to prison if they commit their crime due to a mental disorder just as a suicidal person is? Murderers should undergo a mental evaluation, and should they be found to have a mental disorder they should be ordered to participate in treatment just as a suicidal person would. Murderers found to be of sound mind should be punished for the crimes they have committed. Why should someone who is of "sound mind" not be given the same right to therapy/treatment as someone who is mentally ill? Even if they don't have a diagnosed disease, could someone really be said to have a "sound mind" if they committed a murder? The ultimate difference between murder and suicide is most people who commit murder do not suffer from mental disorders and are aware that their actions are wrong, while the majority of those who attempt suicide suffer from some sort of mental illness and believe their actions are justified. Is this true, or are you just making a generalization? Can you find anything to back up this claim? In addition, do murderers not think their actions are justified? Reading your essay, your opinion seems to be that murder is much worse than suicide - or at least that's how it comes across. Was this your intent? If so, I think you can go into more depth and use more examples to really develop your argument.
These crimes are both very serious as well as permanent. Murder and suicide go hand in hand but often do not share the same motivation. Both are acts revolving around one's self and the desire to obtain some sort of goal, whether it be for better or worse.
Brianna -
This is definitely an improvement from your first drafts, and I think there are a few things you can do to really make this a powerful piece.
First, there are a lot of times that you touch on a new topic that could really add to your paper, but just brush over them rather than really getting into detail. For example, you say "different results are possible with the same mental disorder," and "the possibility of a schizophrenic person murdering someone during an episode is a possibility," but you never say anything else about these. These are great opportunities to really expand on the main point of your paper: the similarities and differences between murder and suicide. Take advantage of these opportunities to really add important content to your paper!
You also make a few claims that you don't back up much - for example, you often suggest that murderers should be tested for mental disorders before determining whether they should be sent to therapy or prison. When you make a claim like this, make sure you are really thinking about the other side of the argument, and then defending yourself against that. I've tried to ask some questions during the paper that point out the other side of the argument (how can you really determine if someone is of sound mind, what is the correct treatment) - hopefully these questions will help you think of a different perspective and develop a deeper and stronger paper.
You're really moving in the right direction - just keep finding ways to get even deeper and more critical with what you're saying, and keep convincing us that what you're saying is important, and correct!
Matt Final Comparison (posted RHS March 9 -- 171 March 11)
Murder and suicide are synonymous with death, however the differences are outstanding. Both produce the same result, but those who commit these two crimes may have very different motives. One succeeds to take the life of another while one succeeds to take the life of himself. A certain individual may be driven by a debilitating mental disorder, out of passion, or because they simply believe there is no other answer. I think one of the reasons you're not happy with your introduction is that you are trying to outline everything you talk about in the essay rather than hook the reader. A great introduction gets the reader really excited to keep reading - it doesn't have to list out the different topics you talk about like you have now. What can you say in this introduction that will really get the reader interested right away? Maybe some sort of anecdote, or a controversial statement you make about your thesis that you explain later? Really it can be anything as long as you're placing that "hook!"
When comparing murder and suicide, one obvious similarity is its product; death. Both involve the taking of a life and the victimization of people, however, the victim in both cases is not the same. In murder, the victim is the individual who has been killed by the perpetrator. In suicide, the victim is also the perpetrator. Due to the nature of both these crimes, the result is almost always pain. What kind of pain? Could you describe specifically what it might feel like to have a loved one commit suicide or a murder, or be murdered? This could be a great opportunity for you to play the "emotions" card and really get your reader to relate to what you're describing! Take advantage of that opportunity! This effects the loved ones of those who commit both crimes. The friends and family of a murderer must deal with the fact that their loved one has committed a terrible crime, and those who have lost a loved one through suicide suffer the pain of the act that they have committed.
Those who commit murder and those who commit suicide may also suffer from similar mental disorders. A person who suffers from schizophrenia might kill themselves as a result of their disorder, but the possibility of a schizophrenic murdering someone during an episode is also a possibility. If one of these people were to be under a great amount of stress they could commit violent acts against themselves or others. The symptoms of schizophrenia could lead an individual to kill themselves to escape their suffering, and the nature of some schizophrenic episodes may cause the mentally ill to attack another person, possibly resulting in death, should they be provoked. What kind of suffering? Could you describe this "episode" more specifically? Do you have any anecdotes about people you know that might add to this (I know you do, you talked to me about it!) If you can be really specific your reader will be able to visualize exactly what you're talking about, and this will make it much easier to understand and stay interested. Antisocial Personality Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder may yield both these possibilities as they are debilitating mental disorders.
So should murder and suicide be viewed in a similar manor? Should it be illegal to commit suicide and should those who commit it be treated in the same way as those who commit murder? The court system often mishandles cases involving the mentally ill, convicting people for acts they committed while not in a sound state of mind. In these cases, the perpetrator should be evaluated by a mental health professional and given the care needed for them to cope with or overcome their disorder. However, should the person be in a sound state of mind, and recognize that their crime is wrong, they should be convicted for their crimes and serve the proper sentence. But this area is not always black and white, mild forms of mental disorders do exist, and to properly evaluate an individual would require evaluation from a trained mental health professional on a case by case basis. Treating this on a case by case basis would make decisions very subjective. Doesn't there need to be some sort of black-and-white standard for determining if a person is "of sound mind" or "mentally ill?" Couldn't just leaving the decision up to the "mental health professionals" cause a lot of problems? (They could be biased, people cold argue that another mental health professional might have had a different conclusion, etc) For those who attempt suicide, institutionalization is needed to ensure the person cannot harm themselves. Releasing someone who has recently failed at suicide without any consideration for their potential actions is hazardous to that individual's health, as a second attempt is a very likely possibility.
Another motivation for both murder and suicide is the belief that there is no other answer. Sometimes a person comes to the conclusion that they have no other option than to commit murder or suicide. A person may believe that their life cannot possibly improve and that suicide is the only way to escape from their suffering. This also applies to murder in the sense that some people believe the only solution to their problems is by killing another person. In some cases this can be justified by the circumstances surrounding the choice to act upon this belief. Many people go through terrible suffering in home, social, and mental situations. This belief can stem from an abusive spouse or parent, drug use, or as the only seemingly viable solution for a given situation. But, for the sake of the individual, these actions more often than not should not be committed. "More often than not?" I don't even know if you realize it but you're making a HUGE claim here - that sometimes, it is justified to kill another person or yourself. If this is what you want to say, you really need to back yourself up since it's not an opinion a lot of people share. What's in example of a time when it WOULD be justified to commit suicide or a murder? How can you convince readers that in certain situations, it is best to murder/commit suicide? And if you make this claim will you be contradicting with anything else you've said about murder and suicide? The result is death for both the victim and punishment for the perpetrator either through death or prison sentence. Alternative options are available in these cases such as social services, contacting the police, or removing one self from the given situation.
While murder and suicide have many similar characteristics they also have many outstanding differences. Typically murder does not result in the death of the person committing the crime, but in the case of suicide it is typical that the person committing the act will die, as that is their ultimate goal. Another difference is that in suicide, the person is the victim as well as the one committing the act. In murder, two or more people are involved instead of just one. Should this make a difference in how we view murder and suicide? Yes. Both are considered crimes but they are handled very differently, and should be. Murderers go to prison while those who fail at committing suicide are shipped off to mental wards in hospitals. The reason for this is that murderers are committing violent acts and are a danger to the people around them. Someone who fails at committing suicide is only a danger to themselves and require treatment to improve their mental condition. Why should murderers be sent to prison if they commit their crime due to a mental disorder just as a suicidal person is? Murderers should undergo a mental evaluation, and should they be found to have a mental disorder they should be ordered to participate in treatment just as a suicidal person would. Murderers found to be of sound mind should be punished for the crimes they have committed because they are aware that their actions are wrong, and did them anyway. This sounds a lot like what you said two paragraphs ago - it kind of sounds like you're repeating yourself when talking about going to prison vs going to a mental ward. Why is this separated from the last paragraph you wrote on this topic? And what specific new points are you trying to make here? Make sure you're always adding new thoughts and new ideas to your paper!
These crimes are both very serious as well as permanent. Neither murder or suicide should be taken lightly and one is not a greater crime than the other. Murder and suicide go hand in hand but often are viewed in a very different light, when maybe they are not so different.. Both are acts revolving around one's self and the desire to obtain some sort of goal, whether it be for better or worse, and often times they may share a similar motivation, or root cause for action, such as mental disorder. These acts are different, but when viewed critically one may see the line between these actions become blurry. You also mentioned you're unhappy with your conclusion... maybe something you could try could be leaving us with something that makes more of an impact. Look at your "definition" essay - you finished with "Would you be willing to kill yourself out of honor, shame, or desperation? Many people have committed suicide, many more have failed, but all are tragic." This leaves the reader really thinking at the end, which is a powerful way to end an essay. Could you try to leave that kind of effect with this essay, too, rather than just finishing with a sentence that summarizes your main points?
Brianna -
This is another huge improvement from the last essay - great job! I can tell you've really made an effort to go into greater detail and explain your arguments much more deeply. The way you organized it this time around is much easier to follow, but there are a few places where I think you'd benefit from going into even more depth. For example, when talking about schizophrenic episodes, why not be a little more specific and go into a little more detail? Maybe describe what a specific episode might be like? Any time you can fit in some sort of story or specific example or anecdote, it can add a ton to your paper. People relate far better to specific anecdotes than they do to general informational talk. Many of the questions I asked you this time around were an attempt to get you to expand even more on your ideas and really defend your claims. The biggest example is when you say that sometimes suicide is justified. When you make a controversial statement like that, it can make your paper extremely interesting, but you have to make sure you REALLY back it up - get your readers to share that belief with you.
One other thing to look at is the way you talk about whether murderers should be evaluated on a mental health level before being punished - you talk about it towards the beginning of the essay, then come back to it when you're talking about the differences between murder and suicide but say almost the exact same thing. If you're making a new point, make sure you aren't repeating a bunch of stuff you already told us or your readers will get disinterested.
I think this essay is really on it's way, it improves hugely every time. When you're working on your final draft, look for more places to add more specific, exciting detail to engage your reader, and don't be afraid pack an emotional punch into it, either. (I mentioned some places in my comments where you could do this - introduction and conclusion, for example.)
- BriannaT3 Mar 9, 2012
I really think our discussion about structure helped me with this last draft, I tried to change it up and I don't feel nearly as constricted with my ideas. I would really like to know what you think of my introduction and conclusion as well, I feel like they are still weak points in this paper. I also apologize for not posting on Thursday, but I did my absolute best to get it posted on time. I'm excited to hear what you have to say.
-Brianna Reflection #2 (RHS March 16 -- 171 March 25)
Rough Draft Argument (posted RHS April 6 -- 171 April 8)
Revision Argument (posted RHS April 13 -- 171 April 15)
Euthanasia is the act of intentionally ending one's life due to pain or to end suffering. Euthanasia is essentially the act of committing suicide, however, there are more dimensions to this idea. What are these dimensions? What do you think are the big differences between euthanasia and suicide? Isn't suicide also "intentionally ending one's life due to pain or to end suffering"? There are also two very opposing sides to the argument on whether euthanasia should be legal or not, including religious arguments, whether it is ethical, and the technicalities behind how to construct its limitations should it become widely legalized. As of yet, euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Montana. Thirty six states have laws prohibiting all acts of assisted suicide, seven states have prohibited assisted suicide under common law, four states, and the District of Columbia, have no specific laws regarding assisted suicide, and do not recognize common law in regard to assisted suicide.Only three states have legalized physician assisted suicide. It is my belief that euthanasia, with appropriate limitations, should become legalized. How can you rework the intro to make it less about euthanasia "facts" and more about why you think it's important/what your opinion is? Remember that this is your argument essay, so it's all about you, and what you're trying to convince us to believe. As a reader, it feels like I'm heading into an objective essay about the history of euthanasia rather than an opinion piece.
Possibly one of the most well known acts of assisted suicide, was the work of Doctor Jack Kevorkian. He gave elderly and terminally ill patients the ability to end their lives according to the patient's wishes by hooking them up to a machine he called a 'thanatron' (death machine). Others were given carbon monoxide via a gas mask, called the 'mercitron' (mercy machine). At this time the act of assisted suicide was illegal and Doctor Kevorkian was charged with second degree homicide. He was released after eight years of his 10-25 year sentence. For his actions he was nicknamed 'Dr. Death.' Kevorkian's actions were not legal, nor did he practice them within any legal guidelines. He claimed to have assisted in the suicides of around one hundred and thirty patients. Were Kevorkian's actions justified? Do you think they were justified? What gives Kevorkian the right to end anyone's life? He's essentially committing murder - is murder okay if the person asks for it? Can a person really ask to be murdered and be justified? He relived the pain of those near death and those suffering from terminal illness. He was quoted as saying, "Dying is not a crime." Dying should not be a crime, unfortunately, only three out of fifty of the United States allow doctor assisted suicide. If "dying is not a crime," why is suicide a crime? Why don't you think it's a crime? If you think suicide is wrong, how can you draw that fine line between suicide and euthanasia - is it really that black and white? Kevorkian was not the first, however, to try and justify euthanasia and the right to die. Euthanasia dates back to Ancient Greece and Rome and
was supported by Socrates, Plato and Seneca the Elder in the ancient world.
The modern debate about euthanasia began in Oregon with the 'Oregon Death with Dignity Act,' which was successfully passed October 27th, 1997. The act allows patients to be prescribed a lethal medicine by their physician. The patients must take the medication themselves and cannot be assisted by any family or physicians. The patients must be adults who are terminally ill. The patients are designated a physician and a counselor to help them decide if this rout is the right one for them. I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction for the rights of terminally ill or elderly patients. What other steps should be taken in the right direction? Do you think more people should have access to lethal medicine, or should it be limited to to terminally ill adults? Why is this a step in the right direction - couldn't this just be the start of a slippery slope that perhaps leads to lethal medicine becoming far too accessible? Could there be a point when people are encouraged to pursue euthanasia because they're no longer "useful" and are more of a hassle than anything else - and would this be considered "okay" or would it be murder? Could these kind of steps encourage suicide and make it seem like suicide is okay - which would be a terrible message to send to children?
The last opposing force for the right for the terminally ill and elderly the die is the religious debate. Some people of faith believe that suicide is a sin, and that the consequences are an eternity in Hell. Many religious people have tried to oppose legislation that goes against their religious beliefs. However, this is not a valid argument because the United States gives us the right to freedom of religion, which means that the religion of one individual should not interfere with the rights, or potential rights of another person who does not share the same belief. People should have the right to make a choice based off of their own personal beliefs, as long as that choice does not infringe on the rights of others. But is it just a religious belief that murder is wrong? It's pretty universally accepted that murder/suicide are both wrong - why is euthanasia an exception? If we start making exceptions like that for when murder & suicide are okay under the right circumstances, won't we be headed down a very dangerous path? Is there a point when people are given too many rights - and rights they don't deserve? Should people be entitled to decide when they should die, or might religious people have a point when they argue that human beings shouldn't be taking control over deciding when lives should end and "playing God"?
Overall I believe that people who are terminally ill, elderly and in a debilitating state should have the right to take their life through humane means provided by a doctor. It is not fair to force a person through immense amounts of pain, mental deterioration, and emotional toil. But at what point can we say a person is going through enough pain that dying is the best option? How is it possible to create an objective way of determining when a person is "sick enough?" Or should anybody be able to have euthanasia as long as they say they are in a "debilitating state?" What constitutes a "debilitating state?" The right to die should be a universal right.
Brianna -
You've picked a wonderfully controversial topic that has a lot of really compelling arguments in both directions - great job in picking one side of the argument and really standing up for what you believe. The number one thing I would suggest to make this paper more engaging and effective is to remember that you're writing an ARGUMENT paper. This isn't a research paper. Your goal is not to give us a bunch of information so that we can decide for ourselves. Your goal is to convince us that euthanasia should be legal. You did a great job presenting the evidence, which is the first step, but now you need to work on the argument part of it. Don't be afraid to fill this with your own opinions - it's all about your opinions. Tell us what you believe, show us the facts, and then convince us that what you believe is right. I've tried to include as many questions as possible that present the alternative view. Hopefully these questions will give you a sense of the kind of arguments you need to defend against as you work on this paper. Think of it as an actual argument with another person - what do they have to say to you? What can you do to defend against what they say? How can you really convince them that you're right?
Think about using the evidence you've already provided in this paper as backup information to support your argument - but your argument is what should really come through! When you are giving opinions, make sure you defend them really thoroughly. For example, you finish the third paragraph with "I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction for the rights of terminally ill or elderly patients." This is a great strong statement, and it was preceded by some really good solid facts - now you just need to stand up for yourself and what you have to say.
Final Argument (posted RHS April 20 -- 171 April 23)
Euthanasia is the act of intentionally ending one’s life due to pain or to end suffering. Euthanasia is essentially the act of committing suicide; however, there are more ideas behind this concept. There are also two very opposing sides to the argument on whether euthanasia should be legal or not, including religious perspectives, ethicality, and the technicalities behind how to construct its limitations, should it be legalized. As of yet, euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the US States of Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Thirty six states have laws prohibiting all acts of assisted suicide, and seven states have prohibited acts of assisted suicide under common law; four states, and the District of Columbia, have no specific laws regarding assisted suicide and so not recognize common law in regard to assisted suicide. Only three states have legalized physician assisted suicide. It is my belief that euthanasia, with appropriate limitations, should become legal in the United States. Excruciating pain, memory loss, and terminal illness should not be hardships we are forced to suffer through at the ends of our lives. Suicide and euthanasia are similar, but they also differ in many ways. Opening our eyes to these differences and accepting euthanasia into our legislation will bring true freedom to many suffering from life itself.
Possibly one of the most well-known acts of assisted suicide was the work of Doctor Jack Kevorkian. He have elderly and terminally ill patients the ability to end their lives according to the patient’s wishes by hooking them up to a machine he called a ‘thanatron’ (death machine.) Others were given carbon monoxide via a gas mask, called the ‘mercitron’ (mercy machine.) at this time the act of assisted suicide was illegal and Doctor Kevorkian was charged with second degree homicide. He was released after eight years of his 10-25 year sentence. For his actions he was nicknamed ‘Dr. Death.’ Kevorkian’s actions were not legal, nor did he practice them within any legal guidelines. He claimed to have assisted in the suicides of around one hundred and thirty patients. Were Kevorkian’s actions justified? He relieved the pain of those near death and those suffering from terminal illness. His patients were already near death, they were suffering. I believe his patients received the relief they desperately needed. Kevorkian was quoted as saying, “Dying is not a crime.” Dying should not be a crime, unfortunately; only three out of fifty of the United States allows doctor assisted suicide. Kevorkian was not the first, however, to try and justify euthanasia and the right to die. Euthanasia dates back to Ancient Greece and Rome and was supported by Socrates, Plato, and Seneca the Elder in the ancient world.
The modern debate about euthanasia began in Oregon with the ‘Oregon Death with Dignity Act,’ which was successfully passed October 27th, 1997. The act allows patients to be prescribed a lethal medicine by their physician. The patients must take the medicine by themselves and cannot be assisted by any family or physician. The patients must be adults who are terminally ill or already near death. The patients are designated a physician and a counselor to help them decide if this rout is the right one for them. I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction for the rights of terminally ill and dying patients. Proper counseling and medical assistance is essential for patients seeking to end their lives. Providing guidelines and proper care will ensure that a patient is making the right choice, and also ensures that they will not take matters into their own hands by committing suicide and possibly making their condition worse.
The last opposing force for the right for people to choose when to end their life is the religious opposition to the act of taking one’s own life. Some people of faith believe that suicide is a sin, and that the consequence is an eternity in Hell. Many religious people have tried to oppose legislation that goes against their religious beliefs, however; this is not a valid reason because the United States gives us the right to freedom from religion. This means that the religion of another person cannot infringe of the rights or potential rights of another person not sharing the other’s belief. People should have the right to make a decision based on their own personal beliefs, as long as that choice does not infringe on the rights of others. Overall I believe that people who are terminally ill, elderly, or are in a debilitating state should have the right to take their life through humane means provided by a doctor. It is not fair to force a person through immense amounts of pain, mental deterioration, and emotional toll. The right to die should be a universal right. Reflection #3 (posted RHS April 23)
Brianna,
My name is Matt Haupert, and I couldn't be more excited about having the opportunity to work with you on your writing over the course of this semester! As a brief introduction, I'm currently a Junior Acting & English major at Drake University. After graduation I'm hoping to pursue some sort of career in either theatre or film, whether that be acting, writing, or directing. I have no idea what exactly I'll end up doing, but for that I am very excited!
Writing has always been a big passion of mine, and working on writing with others is probably the best part. Hopefully by the end of the semester, you'll have learned a little bit from me, I'll have learned a little bit from you, and we'll both be greatly improved writers! I'm excited to hear back from you, and even more excited to meet you in person. We have a really cool opportunity in getting to work with each other on this project - let's make the most of it!
Matt
-
Matt, I am excited to have the opportunity to work with you this semester and I hope this helps me in improving my writing skills. I plan on going to college for psychology as it is an area of study I am very interested in, however I have always had a passion for writing and conveying my ideas and perspectives to other people through writing. I am also interested in acting and theater so that is something that we have in common, I would someday love to be a playwrite or to be able to produce a movie from my ideas. I am very passionate about my ideas and opinions and I find enjoyment in expressing them through creative writing. This semester I hope to improve my writing skills and my ability to convey my messages, as well as improving my mechanics and understanding of rhetorical techniques. The biggest challenges I have overcome, are accepting the advice of others and applying it to my work, rather than taking advice as an offense. I've accepted that not all of my writing is perfect and I am excited to hear how it can be improved.
Sincerely,
Brianna
Personal Reflection on Topic of Inquiry(posted RHS January 27 -- 171 January 29)
Junior High for most is a time of change, and most do not look back on it with fond emotions. During my Junior High years I was faced with a situation that most may not even understand, and still makes me think to this day (Makes you think about what? And it feels like you're making two different points with your first two sentences - how does the second sentence tie in to the first?) . My parents separated my sixth grade year, my seventh they attempted at working things out, and finally my eighth grade year after what seemed like an eternity through Hell my parents divorced. Fifty percent of American households are divorced, but fifty percent of children have not had a parent attempt suicide. (I understand what you're saying here, and I really love that you're finishing the paragraph with some shock value, but your wording is a little unclear. Did one of your parents attempt suicide? I assumed that's what you meant the first time I read it, and obviously it becomes clear later. However, since this is the first time you mention it, it seems to come out of nowhere and is a little confusing. How can you rework that last sentence to make sure your readers know your father attempted suicide, which is something most people don't have to deal with?)
My memories from these years are clouded and many of them I have blocked from remembering, however I can't forget the days I spent visiting my dad at Lutheran Hospital's in-patient care facility. I didn't learn the reason for him being committed until long after. (When did he committed to the facility? And at the time, what did you think he was doing there? Make sure the reader knows what's going on before you dive into the story - I found myself asking questions like 'what hospital?' 'what happened?' 'why is he there?' 'is he physically or mentally ill?'.. How can you set up the story so this is all a little more clear?) I recall walking through a heavy white security door being guided by a nurse. The nurse pointed to the plastic bag in my mom's hand. She told my mom that she couldn't bring the bag in, because any of the patients could use it to harm themselves. (What plastic bag?) At long last after months without seeing my dad, I caught a glimpse of him from behind the nurse. He was dressed in grey sweats, as all the other patients were, with blue socks whos color screamed their clinical origin. I must admit that excitement to see my dad was not the emotion I was feeling at the sight of his slouching frame, I felt the person sitting in front of me was not my father at all. He was not the lively caring man who tickled me till I cried with laughter, nor the man who brought me doughnuts when he worked night shifts at Firestone tire factory, nor did it seem that he felt anything at all. (This is a really great description of your father.. showing the contrast between the lively, caring father and the father that didn't feel anything at all is really powerful! But what happened next? Did you talk to him? What'd he say? I'm really engaged and want to know how the rest of the visit went, and how it ties into your overall message, but you skip right to when he's released.)
Six months later my dad had been released, I am sitting in the kitchen with my face planted on the table, tears streaming down my face (Why do you switch to present tense here? It makes it a lot more confusing to follow along.). My dad is opposite to me, this is the first time I've seen him face-to-face without my mother's intrusion (Why do you say 'intrusion'? Did you have a bad relationship with her? Did she get in the way of your relationship with your father?). He looks into my eyes as I peer up at him from beneath my hair, and he tells me about a young girl he knew at Lutheran Hospital. (Who is this 'young girl'? How does she relate to the story?) You see, my dad just got word that I have been the victim on severe self harm. (Were you inflicting self harm because you were having difficulty dealing with your father's situation? Or was it something unrelated?) I never wished to hurt my dad, but this news gave him the disposition of watered down jell-o. This is when I realized that my self destruction affected more than just myself, it affected my father, the man who I cared and still care very deeply about; his feelings reflect those of my own. (You have some really great imagery here! The storytelling is a bit confusing, though - is your paper about your father and his situation, or about you and the way you dealt with it? Or is it about your relationship with him? It feels like it sort of shifts between these, which is hard to follow. Could you make the paper more effective by just picking one focus and sticking with that?)
Two years after I visited my dad at the in-patient care facility I am standing at his bedroom door, having a solemn conversation, I no longer live with my mom (I didn't know you lived with your mom before- make sure you fill the readers in with details like that.) My dad has just gotten word that if I choose to live with him full-time that my mom is going to court to file violation of their custody agreement. I hadn't seen my dad this upset in a long time, he reveals to me the true reason he was committed at Lutheran hospital, he attempted suicide. That moment hit me like a ton of bricks hitting solid concrete, I could only stare blankly into the space above his head. The years between my parent's split and the day that my dad reveals his secret, I was filled with suicidal thoughts, bouts of sever self harm, and periods where I would lay in bed not capable of doing anything (What was it exactly that led to this? How and why did these thoughts start?). My dad tells me that the reason he wanted to end his life was because he thought he had lost me forever (Why did he think that?), and I was his only reason to continue living.
Today I came home to my dad putting on a gold chain and referring to himself as Father Pickle (because of a toy pickle that yodels when you press a button on its side, which he takes with him when he sings karaoke.) We both laugh and smile, tell each other that we love each other, and I say goodbye to him as he goes to meet his friends; I sit down and write this essay, I reflect on how I am my father's reason for living, just as he is my reason for living. My father is a phoenix; The days at Lutheran were his last days living his old withered life, and I was the fire that caused him to be reborn. (This is really cool idea - nice way to finish the essay! Remember though that the assignment asks you to "write a narrative that ends with a question about your chosen topic of inquiry." What's your question?)
Brianna-
I'm really impressed with the work you've done so far! You've got some great imagery in there which makes it really interesting to read. Your emotion and passion for what you're writing really shows, which makes it very engaging and powerful. It'd be hard to read this essay without really feeling something and being moved by your story.
The one thing you really need to work on to make this even more effective is making sure readers are able to follow the story. You start off pretty ambiguously in your first paragraph, which is fine as long as you fill in the details after that. However, I felt like those details were missing a lot of the time. If I already knew a little bit about your situation, I would know exactly what was going on. But you have to remember that readers won't know ANYTHING about you - several of the questions/comments I included in the essay point out specific places that you should think of this.
Another thing that makes it a bit confusing is the way you really jump around between different times - you go from visiting your father in the hospital, to six months later, to two years later... when you make such big jumps you have to make sure you very clearly establish what the situation is at the new time. For example.. "Two years after I visited my dad... I am standing at his bedroom door, having a solemn conversation, I no longer live with my mom." Immediately I start wondering things like - what happened over those two years? Why'd she move out of her mom's house? What's this solemn conversation about - am I supposed to know what is going on with them?' On a somewhat unrelated note - I'd be very careful about choosing to switch between past and present tense. When you start saying "I am sitting" instead of "I was sitting" it gets really confusing.
I loved reading this essay... it is very personal, and a lot of times writing something that is really personal is very hard to do! It's always great to see writing that is passionate and straight from the heart. I can't wait to see more of your writing throughout the semester!
Rough Draft Definition (posted RHS February 3 -- 171 February 5)
Suicide, by definition, is the act of taking ones own life, but suicide takes so much more than that. By extinguishing your life you are also removing yourself from the lives of those who love and care about you. Suicide can be an act of desperation, religious fanaticism, societal expectations (you're saying suicide can be an "act of societal expectations", what do you mean? an act of conforming to societal expectations? an act of rebelling against societal expectations? or something else?), or as a means of euthanasia (is it really a MEANS of euthanasia? or is euthanasia a means of suicide?). Over one million people die because of suicide each year, and it is one of the leading causes of death in teenagers and adults under thirty five. For those who don't succeed in committing suicide there are an estimated ten to twenty million attempted suicides each year. Suicide, however, is much more than just a statistic (this is a great point - why don't you refer back to it more often? you gives us a lot more facts than personal/emotional anecdotes).
There are many different reasons that people decide to take their lives, some people are driven by extreme political views, such as suicide bombers or kamikaze pilots; others are driven by society to take their lives. Sati is a Hindu funeral practice in which the widow was expected to immolate herself on her late husband's funeral pyre. This practice has since been outlawed. To some, suicide is a comfort. To those suffering from terminal illness, death is the escape from their every day suffering, called euthanasia. (To me it feels like this paragraph doesn't really add anything new to the essay, but just repeats the first paragraph with a few more specifics. What are you trying to add with this paragraph?)
During World War II, Kamikaze pilots would sacrifice their lives for their country by attempting to crash their planes to destroy enemy forces. A similar practice in seen in the Islamic rules of warfare, in which people would bomb enemies killing themselves in the process. Many other suicide bombings have occurred in different counties around the world.
For others, suicide is something done out of shame, or it is expected of them by the society they live in. This is called dutiful suicide. It is preformed for a variety of reasons, such as the practice of Seppuku in Japanese culture. Seppuku is the act of eviscerating ones self in a ritualistic manner, this is typically only preformed by samurai out of honor or shame. In the Hindu culture, Sati is a religious funeral practice that has been outlawed, where the widow would be expected to immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre. It was done by choice, if not, the women were often pressured to do so by their peers. This practice was outlawed by the British in 1829. (Do you think Kamikaze pilots and those practicing Seppuku and Sati have the right to take their lives? Is it okay to commit suicide if you have strong religious justification for it? Or if it's for the greater good of your country? These types of suicide you're talking about are very different than what most people today think of when they hear "suicide" .. but is there really that much of a difference?)
Euthanasia is a subject that is not often touched on, due to religious and political disagreement in the United States. Doctor Jack Kevorkian was given a ten to twenty five year prison sentence after assisting around one hundred and thirty patients in committing suicide. He claimed, 'dying is not a crime.' Recently the topic of euthanasia has resurfaced, as it is now legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Though the people who choose to take their lives must fit strict guidelines and must be able to take the drug themselves, they cannot be assisted by others. For these people, suicide is an escape from suffering. It is a relief, and it is a right they should be allowed to. (This is a really big claim you're making - do people really have the "right" to choose when to die? How is this any different from someone taking his life as a "relief" from emotional pain (depression, loneliness, etc)? There's really a fine line there.. I'd like to hear more about why you're making this argument.)
When most think of suicide, thoughts of angst ridden teenagers and depressed housewives. Unfortunately this is the reality for many people throughout the United States, and the world (you mean it's a reality that most suicides are teenagers and depressed housewives? or it's a reality that most people THINK that's the case? either way, I'd like to hear more about it since it's what most people think of when they hear "suicide"). Suicide brought on by mental illness is a painful and difficult road, and touches people very personally. Suicide caused by mental illness includes but is not limited to depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, mood disorders, and drug abuse. People often take this rout believing they have no other choices, when there are ways out all around them (like what?). Committing suicide under these terms may even be considered selfish, imagine being a child and having to lose a parent because that parent didn't believe in a future, even for you (are you referencing your own situation with your father? this would be a good place to expand on the claim you made earlier - "suicide is more than a statistic". do you think it's selfish? how did it personally affect you when your father tried and failed? how are others emotionally affected when someone commits suicide, or tries and fails?). There are many therapies available for those with mental disorders, and there are many options for those who feel the need to take their lives.
Suicide is tragic in most of its forms. (most? are there times when suicide is not tragic?) It effects people the the most permanent way we know, death. Some do not have the ability to keep their lives, others do but choose not to. Would you be willing to kill yourself out of honor, shame, or desperation? Many have, many have failed, all are tragic. (I really like how you finished this essay - the question you ask the reader at the end is very powerful/provoking!)
Great job, Brianna! It's a really well organized, engaging and informational piece of writing. While reading it, it seemed like you felt sort of constricted by the actual assignment. You were asked to write a "definition" essay - to define and explain a specific word, and use examples to better show your reader what that word means. I think this caught you in a bit of a trap - because you were trying to "define" a word you spent a lot of your time talking about factual details (like information on Kamikazes & Seppuku, suicide statistics, etc). The spots where your paper is the best, however, are the places where you really emotionally connect to the reader - like when you remind us suicide is more than a statistic, when you ask the reader to imagine being a child losing a parent, and when you finish the paper with "would you be willing to kill yourself out of honor, shame or desperation?" Maybe the best way to 'define' something as emotionally traumatizing as suicide is not just to give us all the facts and history, but to show us the emotional side of things. Why do people do it? How are others affected? As a person who has experienced a parent attempting suicide, you know a lot more about the emotional effects of suicide than most people. Share those with us, and that's when we'll start to "get it" about suicide.
This is not to say that you should get rid of the facts & the history - it's all very interesting. These are just some ideas of what you might want to add into the essay to make it even more powerful. If you can balance the facts with personal stories & opinions that might get more of an emotional reaction, I think you'll end up with a really great essay that does even more than just "define".
Really nice work - once again, I loved being able to sense your passion coming through in your writing. Can't wait to see where this essay goes from here! Let me know if you have any questions!
Matt
Revision Definition (posted RHS February 10 -- 171 February 12 )
Suicide, by definition, is the act of taking ones own life, but suicide takes so much more than that. By extinguishing your life you are also removing yourself from the lives of those who love and care about you. Suicide can be an act of desperation, religious fanaticism, societal expectations, or as a means of euthanasia. Imagine your friends, family and neighbors encouraging you to take your life because they believe that is the proper way to mourn the death on your husband. Imagine being in such great pain that your only escape is through ending your life. Over one million people die because of suicide each year, and it is one of the leading causes of death in teenagers and adults under thirty five. For those who don't succeed in committing suicide there are an estimated ten to twenty million attempted suicides each year. Suicide, however, is much more than just a statistic (I really like this first paragraph.. it gets me excited about what's to come in the rest of the paper, you really hooked me!)
During World War II, Kamikaze pilots would sacrifice their lives for their country by attempting to crash their planes to destroy enemy forces. A similar practice in seen in the Islamic rules of warfare, in which people would bomb enemies killing themselves in the process. Many other suicide bombings have occurred in different counties around the world. This practice is not new, there are occurrences of sacrificing one's own life for their country, religion, or rebellious groups like the IRA and Al Queida. (Do you think committing suicide for your country/religion/etc could be considered more honorable than a typical suicide? After all, they are "sacrificing" their own lives for what they consider the "greater good". It's an interesting thing to think about, because they obviously think they're completely justified and actually doing something noble.) What would posses someone to sacrifice their lives for such an extreme cause? These organizations are manipulating their followers to commit the post permanent self destructive act possible. (So do you think most suicide bombers are doing it because they're "manipulated"? Are there any who do it willingly because they actually think it's the right thing to do?) While taking their own lives their goal is also to take the lives of others. This act of murder and suicide is a tragedy. The leaders of these groups use these individuals as a disposable resource to expand their regime, while erasing lives that people loved and cared for. How many of these suicide bombers make up part of that one million?
For others, suicide is something done out of shame, or it is expected of them by the society they live in. This is called dutiful suicide. It is preformed for a variety of reasons, such as the practice of Seppuku in Japanese culture. Seppuku is the act of eviscerating ones self in a ritualistic manner, this is typically only preformed by samurai out of honor or shame. In the Hindu culture, Sati is a religious funeral practice that has since been outlawed by the British in 1829, where the widow would be expected to immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre. It was done by choice, if not, the women were often pressured to do so by their peers. Seppuku was commonly committed by samurai to be taken as prisoners of war, where they would be tortured mercilessly and killed. Should a samurai be shamed, they would be expected to eviscerate themselves so as not to shame their people. Do these people have the right to take their lives? How many of them would have chosen to keep their lives had they not been pressured by society? (You ask a lot of open-ended questions in this draft. I really like that, you get me to really think... but I'm really curious about how you would answer some of these - how could you use your own opinions to even better illustrate what you're trying to say?) How many of the people who have committed suicide over the years were victims of Sati or Seppuku?
Euthanasia is a subject that is not often touched on, due to religious and political disagreement in the United States. Doctor Jack Kevorkian was given a ten to twenty-five year prison sentence after assisting around one hundred and thirty patients in committing suicide. He claimed, 'dying is not a crime.' Recently the topic of euthanasia has resurfaced, as it is now legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Though the people who choose to take their lives must fit strict guidelines and must be able to take the drug themselves, they cannot be assisted by others. For these people, suicide is an escape from suffering. It is a relief, and it is a right they should be allowed to. Unlike others who still have a chance to make a difference in the world, these people are at the end of their lives (So do you think people have less "worth" once they are near the end of their lives? What if a teenager doesn't think he can make a difference or doesn't want to make a difference - shouldn't he be allowed to end his life too? Who gets to decide when someone isn't going to make a difference in the world anymore? I'm just playing devil's advocate here to get you to explore your argument even more deeply.) They have nothing more they can do except live in pain, unable to do the things they love. How many suicides are an act of euthanasia?
When most think of suicide, thoughts of angst ridden teenagers and depressed housewives, however depression and mental illness is a harsh reality for many different people throughout the world. (This opening sentence confused me a little bit - are you going to talk about teenagers/housewives or depression/mental illness? How do those two pairs relate?) Mental illness does not discriminate, it can effect any race, any age, and any social background anywhere in the world. Both genetics and environment come into play. Suicide brought on by mental illness is a painful and difficult road, and touches people very personally (Would you say this type of suicide that touches people more personally than others?). Suicide caused by mental illness includes but is not limited to depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, mood disorders, and drug abuse. People often take this rout believing they have no other choices, when there are ways out all around them, such as therapy, group support, anti-psychotic medications, and support from both friends and family. Suicide can be considered selfish, imagine being a child and having to lose a parent because that parent didn't believe in a future, even for you. How many people out of that one million had children? Could losing a parent drive a child to committing suicide? This act is needless waste of life. Imagine being a healthy individual, how would you explain to a blind man that you do not value your sight? What about a deaf man? Someone who is paralyzed? (This is a really cool idea, but it's kind of unclear where exactly you're going with it - could you expand/explain yourself a little better so we know what exactly you're trying to say with this image?) How many of that one million were young healthy individuals with years of life ahead of them?
Suicide is tragic in all of its forms. It effects people the the most permanent way we know, death. Some do not have the ability to keep their lives, others do but choose not to. Would you be willing to kill yourself out of honor, shame, or desperation? Many have, many have failed, all are tragic.
Brianna -
I can tell you've really made some progress in this second draft. Make sure you proofread really carefully for your final draft - there were a few misspellings/typos scattered throughout that you'll want to clean up just to make it easier to read. In addition, try reading your paragraphs out loud after writing them - its a really easy way to tell how clear & concise your sentences/phrasing are.
You definitely engaged the reader a lot more in this one, both with all the questions you asked and with the more emotional anecdotes you used throughout. For your next draft, don't be afraid of giving us your own opinions. You ask a lot of questions but we don't get to see that much about what you think. As long as you really back up what you're saying, personal opinions can be a great way of getting a point across/telling a story. In the places where you do give us your opinions, try to go even further - really convince us that what you're saying is right. For example, you say "this act is a needless waste of life" -- we get your strong opinion on suicide (and an opinion that most would agree with) -- but then I want to hear more about why you think that.
See you in class Monday!
Matt
Final Definition (posted RHS February 17 -- 171 February 19 )
Suicide, by definition, is the act of taking ones own life, but suicide takes so much more than that. By extinguishing your life you are also removing yourself from the lives of those who love and care about you. Suicide can be an act of desperation, religious fanaticism, societal expectations, or as a means of euthanasia. Imagine your friends, family and neighbors encouraging you to take your life because they believe that is the proper way to mourn the death on your husband. Imagine being in such great pain that the only escape is through ending your life. Over one million people die because of suicide each year, and it is one of the leading causes of death in teenagers and adults under thirty five. For those who don't succeed in committing suicide there are an estimated ten to twenty million attempted suicides each year. Suicide, however, is much more than just a statistic.
During World War II, Kamikaze pilots would sacrifice their lives for their country by attempting to crash their planes to destroy enemy forces. A similar practice in seen in the Islamic rules of warfare, in which people would bomb enemies killing themselves in the process. Many other suicide bombings have occurred in different counties around the world. This practice is not new, there are occurrences of sacrificing one's own life for their country, religion, or rebellious groups like the IRA and Al Queida. What would posses someone to sacrifice their lives for such an extreme cause? These organizations convince their followers to commit the most permanent self-destructive act possible. Are there not more peaceful ways to act for their cause? There are, but they choose not to because they believe there is no other way. Think of how different the world would be without suicide bombings.
("...they believe there is no other way" - this is an interesting thought, because it seems to apply to basically every form of suicide... how can you expand on this to really add to your "definition" of suicide? Why do you think people "believe there is no other way" other than taking their own lives? Are there actually any other ways, or is suicide sometimes the best option?)
Suicide bombers, while taking their own lives also have the goal to take the lives of others. This act of murder and suicide is a tragedy. The leaders of these groups use these individuals as a disposable resource to expand their regime, while erasing lives that people loved and cared for. How many of these suicide bombers make up part of that one million?
For others, suicide is something done out of shame, or it is expected of them by the society they live in. This is called dutiful suicide. It is preformed for a variety of reasons, such as the practice of Seppuku in Japanese culture. Seppuku is the act of eviscerating ones self in a ritualistic manner, this is typically only preformed by samurai out of honor or shame. In the Hindu culture, Sati is a religious funeral practice that has since been outlawed by the British in 1829, where the widow would be expected to immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre. It was done by choice, if not, the women were often pressured to do so by their peers. Seppuku was commonly committed by samurai to be taken as prisoners of war, where they would be tortured mercilessly and killed. (This was kind of confusing to me.. you start talking about Seppuku, then move on to Sati, but then switch right back to Seppuku.. is there a better way to organize this so readers stay focused on what you're saying rather than jumping back and forth?) Should a samurai be shamed, they would be expected to eviscerate themselves so as not to shame their people. Do these people have the right to take their lives? How many of them would have chosen to keep their lives had they not been pressured by society? To take your life in an honorable manor rather than to be taken prisoner and tortured would be an optimal option, however, to take your life out of shame would be a most miserable choice to have to make. (Interesting - you describe suicide as an "optimal option" in this specific instance - are you saying that suicide is actually justified in this situation? Wouldn't it be even more noble to accept the torture? What about suicide bombings - suicide bombers think they're dying honorably, so why isn't that an "optimal option"? You seem to define this type of suicide differently than you define the other types, so I'd really like to hear why you do this. It's definitely an interesting aspect of the paper!) How many of the people who have committed suicide over the years were victims of Sati or Seppuku?
Euthanasia is a subject that is not often touched on, due to religious and political disagreement in the United States. Doctor Jack Kevorkian was given a ten to twenty-five year prison sentence after assisting around one hundred and thirty patients in committing suicide. He claimed, "dying is not a crime." Recently the topic of euthanasia has resurfaced, as it is now legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Though the people who choose to take their lives must fit strict guidelines and must be able to take the drug themselves, they cannot be assisted by others. For these people, suicide is an escape from suffering. It is a relief, and it is a right they should be allowed to. Unlike others who still have a chance to make a difference in the world, these people are at the end of their lives. This isn't to say that these people have no worth to society, it simply means that they have the right to die in a peaceful manner, rather than in pain and unable to communicate or remember things. A young person has a long life yet to live, and have no chances of dying naturally within the near future unless they are suffering from a terminal illness. For these people, euthanasia is finding peace. They have nothing more they can do except live in pain, unable to do the things they love. How many suicides are an act of euthanasia? (You've really done a lot to bolster your argument on euthanasia, and you've done it without adding tons of extra fluff to your paper - nice work!)
Depression and mental illness is a harsh reality for many different people throughout the world. Mental illness does not discriminate, it can effect any race, any age, and any social background anywhere in the world. Both genetics and environment come into play. Suicide brought on by mental illness is a painful and difficult road, and touches people very personally. It effects people on an emotional level, and effects how people function as well as their relationships with others. (How does it do this? How does it touch people, affect people, and affect how they function?) Suicide caused by mental illness includes but is not limited to depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, mood disorders, and drug abuse. People often take this rout believing they have no other choices, when there are ways out all around them, such as therapy, group support, anti-psychotic medications, and support from both friends and family. Suicide could even be considered selfish. (It could be considered selfish... but is it? Don't be afraid to make a strong statement as long as you back it up!) Imagine being a child and having to lose a parent because that parent didn't believe in a future, even for you. There are people who rely on them, care about them, and would be devastated to lose them. How many people out of that one million had children? Could losing a parent drive a child to committing suicide? This act is needless waste of life. Imagine being a healthy individual, how would you explain to a blind man that you do not value your sight? What about a deaf man? Someone who is paralyzed? These people live lives without major senses, without limbs, and some are unable to move without assistance. Imagine having to explain to those disabled people that you do not value your sight, hearing, or the ability to walk. (This makes a lot more sense now that you've reworded it, but I think you can expand on it even a bit more just because it's a really cool idea - how could you tie this idea back into your definition of suicide / what does this anecdote add to your definition of suicide? If you could really get the overall meaning of this anecdote across to your readers, I think it could be even more relevant and make more of an impact.) How many of that one million were young healthy individuals with years of life ahead of them?
Suicide is tragic in all of its forms. It effects people the the most permanent way we know, death. Some do not have the ability to keep their lives, others do but choose not to. There are many different motivations for one to take their life, such as honoring their country or religion, to mourn, or to relieve suffering. Would you be willing to kill yourself out of honor, shame, or desperation? Many people have committed suicide, any more have failed, but all are tragic
Brianna -
You've made some really good progress with this draft. All your arguments are a lot more convincing and you make some really interesting and well thought out points in the paper. I think you've really got a good set of ideas & opinions laid out in this draft - as you prepare the final copy that you'll turn in to your teacher, try to think about how you can expand & go even deeper with the ideas that you've already started to put on paper. What can you say that will make it harder for someone to disagree with you? The majority of my questions in this draft are focused on just this - I tried to point out where you said something really interesting and then challenge what you said to get you to think about it a little further and bolster your claims even more. The more you can think about the opposing opinion, the more you'll be able to say to back up yours.
There are still some times when you seem afraid to really make a statement, for example, you say "Suicide could even be considered selfish." - saying it "could be" considered selfish isn't really saying anything at all. Why don't you just say whether or not it's selfish? If you can follow a claim like this up with really strong reasoning/evidence/examples, then it will be very powerful. Papers that say things that can be disagreed with are the most interesting papers to read - so trust that, and trust that it's okay to make a statement if you support it.
This paper has really come together. You give us a lot of interesting information and really paint a picture of what suicide is and what it means to you. As you put together that final draft for your teacher, try to use the questions I asked in the paper to spark some new perspectives and new ways of thinking about things - if you do this and it shows in your writing, I think you'll see some exciting results.
Matt
Reflection #1 (posted RHS February 20 -- 171 February 22)
The purpose of my writing was to communicate the impact that suicide has on it's victims. I believe I I met this purpose successfully. My intended audience includes people who are uneducated about suicide and have not felt the emotional impact that it has on its victims. To adapt my writing appeal to this audience I tried to be informational and informative as well as trying to put the audience in the victim's shoes using emotional appeal. I chose this topic because suicide is something I have a lot of experience with and I believe that not many people are educated about how or why it happens. My writing draws attention to the key aspects of my message by questioning the reader as well as giving my own response. I used emotional appeal as well as being descriptive. I created tone my questioning the reader and adding my own emotions and opinions into the writing.
Rough Draft Comparison (posted RHS February 24 -- 171 February 26 )
Murder and suicide. They are synonymous with death, however the differences are outstanding. Both produce the same result, but those who commit these two crimes have very different motives. One succeeds to take the life of another, one succeeds to take the life of himself. These acts are similar yet different. This is a great idea of two things to compare - but how can you hook me in more as a reader with this first paragraph? Reading this now I just get the very basic and commonly understood differences between murder and suicide. Could you give me a hint of what your opinions might be, or what I might learn or understand by reading your essay?
When comparing murder and suicide one obvious similarity is its product; death. Both involve the taking of a life and the victimization of innocent people. But is this always the case? Aren't a lot of people murdered because they are not innocent? And can you really call suicide the "victimization of innocent people" when the person must decide to do it himself? These acts also effect its victims in similar ways, families must due without loved ones and must suffer through loss. How is the suffering different for a family whose loved one was murdered as opposed to a family whose loved one committed suicide? This also effects the loved ones of those who commit both crimes. The friends and family of a murderer must deal with the fact that their loved one has committed a terrible crime, and those who have lost a loved one through suicide suffer the pain of the act that they have committed. Those who commit murder and those who commit suicide may also suffer from similar mental disorders. It's interesting to think that a mental disorder might lead one person to take his own life, while leading another person to take someone else's life... how is this possible? Are they really the same mental disorders, just affecting people in different ways? I'd love to hear more about this. So should murder and suicide be viewed in a similar manor? Should it be illegal to commit suicide and should those who commit it be treated in the same way as those who commit murder? You tell me! Do you view them in a similar manner? Why? There's a lot of room for your own opinions here, don't be afraid to share them. They effect people in a similar manor, however their differences must be taken into consideration as well.
While murder and suicide have many similar characteristics they also have many outstanding differences. Typically murder does not result in the death of the person committing the crime, but in the case of suicide it is typical that the person committing the act will die, as that is their ultimate goal. Another difference is that in suicide, the person is the victim as well as the one committing the act. In murder, two people are involved instead of just one. Should this make a difference in how we view murder and suicide? Yes and no. Why do you say "yes and no"? Can you get more specific about how you think they should be viewed? It seems like how we view suicide and murder similarly and differently is a focus of your essay, but you keep just mentioning it and then moving on to something else. These would be great places for you to expand and paint a much clearer picture of how you think we should view it. Both are considered crimes but they are handled very differently. Murderers go to prison while those who commit suicide are shipped off to mental wards in hospitals. Do you mean those who try and fail to commit suicide? Why should murderers be sent to prison if they commit their crime due to a mental disorder just as a suicidal person is? So do you think murderers should go to mental wards, or do you think suicidal people should be sent to prison? Should they be treated equally? If so, which way should they all be treated? And if not, why? What's the difference? You already have some great ideas - you just need to explore those ideas more deeply. Really think about what you believe, and why you believe it, then share that with us.
These crimes are both very serious as well as permanent. They share their similarities and differences. Motives differ but at the same time could be considered the same. Murder and suicide go hand in hand but branch out on their own paths.
Brianna,
You've definitely come up with a very interesting topic for this comparison essay, and I'm excited to see where you go from here. People often times forget how similar murder and suicide really are.
I can tell you've got some really interesting ideas here, you just need to find places that you can start to flesh these ideas out a little more. Right now what happens a lot is you'll mention something briefly but then move on before really talking about it. For example, in the second paragraph you say "Those who commit murder and those who commit suicide may also suffer from similar mental disorders." This is a very interesting statement that I would really like to hear about, but then you move on to something else and never come back to it. You also ask a lot of questions - such as "Why should murderers be sent to prison if they commit their crime due to a mental disorder just as a suicidal person is?" - that are very though provoking, but don't go any deeper into the topic. Find the places in this paper when you're making a strong and potentially controversial claim, or asking a particularly provocative question, and get into deeper detail. Explain what you're thinking and convince us show us what it means & why it matters.
I think you'll find that you've already got a great starting point that could lead to an extremely interesting paper. I tried to ask you a lot of questions that will hopefully help provoke your thinking and help you approach the comparison on a deeper & more critical level. Hopefully this will help you get past that "brain lock-down" and help you expand your own thinking about the issue!
Matt
-
I'm sincerely sorry about how late this assignment is. It's been hard for me to figure out what to write about and I am having a lot of trouble developing my ideas. I'm hoping that I can expand on this because I love the idea of these two things being compared, but my brain seems to be on lock-down at the moment. Again I am very sorry about my procrastination.
- Brianna
Revision Comparison (posted RHS March 2 -- 171 March 4)
Murder and suicide are synonymous with death, however the differences are outstanding. Both produce the same result, but those who commit these two crimes may have very different motives. One succeeds to take the life of another while one succeeds to take the life of himself. A certain individual may be driven by a debilitating mental disorder, out of passion, or because they simply believe there is no other answer.
When comparing murder and suicide one obvious similarity is its product; death. Both involve the taking of a life and the victimization of people. These acts also effect its victims in similar ways, families must due without loved ones and must suffer through loss. This also effects the loved ones of those who commit both crimes. The friends and family of a murderer must deal with the fact that their loved one has committed a terrible crime, and those who have lost a loved one through suicide suffer the pain of the act that they have committed. Those who commit murder and those who commit suicide may also suffer from similar mental disorders. A person who suffers from schizophrenia might kill themselves as a result of their disorder, but the possibility of a schizophrenic murdering someone during an episode is also a possibility. How might schizophrenia lead someone to commit either suicide or a murder? Why would this same disorder cause such different results in different people? It's a fascinating topic, but I don't know much about it as a reader so I really want to know more - make sure you really get in depth when you introduce new topics like this! Antisocial Personality Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder may yield the same results. Depending on the circumstances the sufferer is under, different results are possible with the same mental disorder. Again - why and how? Looking at how these disorders affect murder and suicide differently will be a great opportunity for you to highlight their similarities and differences, so take advantage of that by expanding on the topic! So should murder and suicide be viewed in a similar manor? Should it be illegal to commit suicide and should those who commit it be treated in the same way as those who commit murder? The court system often mishandles cases involving the mentally ill, convicting people for acts they committed while not in a sound state of mind. In these cases, the perpetrator should be evaluated by a mental health professional and given the correct treatment. However, should the person be in a sound state of mind they should be convicted for their crimes and serve the proper sentence.
But what is the "correct treatment?" And how can you determine what exactly is a "sound state of mind?" What if someone falls somewhere in between "mentally ill" and "sound state of mind," or what if someone pretends to be more mentally ill than they really are? I'm not convinced it's as black and white as you're making it seem - could you expand more on this to really convince me that this is a good way of determining a murderer's/suicide victim's punishment? Another motivation for both murder and suicide is the belief that there is no other answer. Sometimes a person comes to the conclusion that they have no other option than to commit murder or suicide. A person may believe that their life cannot possibly improve and that suicide is the only way to escape from their suffering. This also applies to murder in the sense that some people believe the only solution to their problems is by killing another person. Do you think this is a justified reason to commit a murder/suicide? Why/why not? Don't be afraid to use your own opinions when they'll add to your argument.
While murder and suicide have many similar characteristics they also have many outstanding differences. Typically murder does not result in the death of the person committing the crime, but in the case of suicide it is typical that the person committing the act will die, as that is their ultimate goal. Another difference is that in suicide, the person is the victim as well as the one committing the act. In murder, two or more people are involved instead of just one. Should this make a difference in how we view murder and suicide? Yes. Both are considered crimes but they are handled very differently, and should be. Murderers go to prison while those who fail at committing suicide are shipped off to mental wards in hospitals. The reason for this is that murderers are committing violent acts and are a danger to the people around them. Someone who fails at committing suicide is only a danger to themselves and require treatment to improve their mental condition. Why should murderers be sent to prison if they commit their crime due to a mental disorder just as a suicidal person is? Murderers should undergo a mental evaluation, and should they be found to have a mental disorder they should be ordered to participate in treatment just as a suicidal person would. Murderers found to be of sound mind should be punished for the crimes they have committed. Why should someone who is of "sound mind" not be given the same right to therapy/treatment as someone who is mentally ill? Even if they don't have a diagnosed disease, could someone really be said to have a "sound mind" if they committed a murder? The ultimate difference between murder and suicide is most people who commit murder do not suffer from mental disorders and are aware that their actions are wrong, while the majority of those who attempt suicide suffer from some sort of mental illness and believe their actions are justified. Is this true, or are you just making a generalization? Can you find anything to back up this claim? In addition, do murderers not think their actions are justified? Reading your essay, your opinion seems to be that murder is much worse than suicide - or at least that's how it comes across. Was this your intent? If so, I think you can go into more depth and use more examples to really develop your argument.
These crimes are both very serious as well as permanent. Murder and suicide go hand in hand but often do not share the same motivation. Both are acts revolving around one's self and the desire to obtain some sort of goal, whether it be for better or worse.
Brianna -
This is definitely an improvement from your first drafts, and I think there are a few things you can do to really make this a powerful piece.
First, there are a lot of times that you touch on a new topic that could really add to your paper, but just brush over them rather than really getting into detail. For example, you say "different results are possible with the same mental disorder," and "the possibility of a schizophrenic person murdering someone during an episode is a possibility," but you never say anything else about these. These are great opportunities to really expand on the main point of your paper: the similarities and differences between murder and suicide. Take advantage of these opportunities to really add important content to your paper!
You also make a few claims that you don't back up much - for example, you often suggest that murderers should be tested for mental disorders before determining whether they should be sent to therapy or prison. When you make a claim like this, make sure you are really thinking about the other side of the argument, and then defending yourself against that. I've tried to ask some questions during the paper that point out the other side of the argument (how can you really determine if someone is of sound mind, what is the correct treatment) - hopefully these questions will help you think of a different perspective and develop a deeper and stronger paper.
You're really moving in the right direction - just keep finding ways to get even deeper and more critical with what you're saying, and keep convincing us that what you're saying is important, and correct!
Matt
Final Comparison (posted RHS March 9 -- 171 March 11)
Murder and suicide are synonymous with death, however the differences are outstanding. Both produce the same result, but those who commit these two crimes may have very different motives. One succeeds to take the life of another while one succeeds to take the life of himself. A certain individual may be driven by a debilitating mental disorder, out of passion, or because they simply believe there is no other answer. I think one of the reasons you're not happy with your introduction is that you are trying to outline everything you talk about in the essay rather than hook the reader. A great introduction gets the reader really excited to keep reading - it doesn't have to list out the different topics you talk about like you have now. What can you say in this introduction that will really get the reader interested right away? Maybe some sort of anecdote, or a controversial statement you make about your thesis that you explain later? Really it can be anything as long as you're placing that "hook!"
When comparing murder and suicide, one obvious similarity is its product; death. Both involve the taking of a life and the victimization of people, however, the victim in both cases is not the same. In murder, the victim is the individual who has been killed by the perpetrator. In suicide, the victim is also the perpetrator. Due to the nature of both these crimes, the result is almost always pain. What kind of pain? Could you describe specifically what it might feel like to have a loved one commit suicide or a murder, or be murdered? This could be a great opportunity for you to play the "emotions" card and really get your reader to relate to what you're describing! Take advantage of that opportunity! This effects the loved ones of those who commit both crimes. The friends and family of a murderer must deal with the fact that their loved one has committed a terrible crime, and those who have lost a loved one through suicide suffer the pain of the act that they have committed.
Those who commit murder and those who commit suicide may also suffer from similar mental disorders. A person who suffers from schizophrenia might kill themselves as a result of their disorder, but the possibility of a schizophrenic murdering someone during an episode is also a possibility. If one of these people were to be under a great amount of stress they could commit violent acts against themselves or others. The symptoms of schizophrenia could lead an individual to kill themselves to escape their suffering, and the nature of some schizophrenic episodes may cause the mentally ill to attack another person, possibly resulting in death, should they be provoked. What kind of suffering? Could you describe this "episode" more specifically? Do you have any anecdotes about people you know that might add to this (I know you do, you talked to me about it!) If you can be really specific your reader will be able to visualize exactly what you're talking about, and this will make it much easier to understand and stay interested. Antisocial Personality Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder may yield both these possibilities as they are debilitating mental disorders.
So should murder and suicide be viewed in a similar manor? Should it be illegal to commit suicide and should those who commit it be treated in the same way as those who commit murder? The court system often mishandles cases involving the mentally ill, convicting people for acts they committed while not in a sound state of mind. In these cases, the perpetrator should be evaluated by a mental health professional and given the care needed for them to cope with or overcome their disorder. However, should the person be in a sound state of mind, and recognize that their crime is wrong, they should be convicted for their crimes and serve the proper sentence. But this area is not always black and white, mild forms of mental disorders do exist, and to properly evaluate an individual would require evaluation from a trained mental health professional on a case by case basis. Treating this on a case by case basis would make decisions very subjective. Doesn't there need to be some sort of black-and-white standard for determining if a person is "of sound mind" or "mentally ill?" Couldn't just leaving the decision up to the "mental health professionals" cause a lot of problems? (They could be biased, people cold argue that another mental health professional might have had a different conclusion, etc) For those who attempt suicide, institutionalization is needed to ensure the person cannot harm themselves. Releasing someone who has recently failed at suicide without any consideration for their potential actions is hazardous to that individual's health, as a second attempt is a very likely possibility.
Another motivation for both murder and suicide is the belief that there is no other answer. Sometimes a person comes to the conclusion that they have no other option than to commit murder or suicide. A person may believe that their life cannot possibly improve and that suicide is the only way to escape from their suffering. This also applies to murder in the sense that some people believe the only solution to their problems is by killing another person. In some cases this can be justified by the circumstances surrounding the choice to act upon this belief. Many people go through terrible suffering in home, social, and mental situations. This belief can stem from an abusive spouse or parent, drug use, or as the only seemingly viable solution for a given situation. But, for the sake of the individual, these actions more often than not should not be committed. "More often than not?" I don't even know if you realize it but you're making a HUGE claim here - that sometimes, it is justified to kill another person or yourself. If this is what you want to say, you really need to back yourself up since it's not an opinion a lot of people share. What's in example of a time when it WOULD be justified to commit suicide or a murder? How can you convince readers that in certain situations, it is best to murder/commit suicide? And if you make this claim will you be contradicting with anything else you've said about murder and suicide? The result is death for both the victim and punishment for the perpetrator either through death or prison sentence. Alternative options are available in these cases such as social services, contacting the police, or removing one self from the given situation.
While murder and suicide have many similar characteristics they also have many outstanding differences. Typically murder does not result in the death of the person committing the crime, but in the case of suicide it is typical that the person committing the act will die, as that is their ultimate goal. Another difference is that in suicide, the person is the victim as well as the one committing the act. In murder, two or more people are involved instead of just one. Should this make a difference in how we view murder and suicide? Yes. Both are considered crimes but they are handled very differently, and should be. Murderers go to prison while those who fail at committing suicide are shipped off to mental wards in hospitals. The reason for this is that murderers are committing violent acts and are a danger to the people around them. Someone who fails at committing suicide is only a danger to themselves and require treatment to improve their mental condition. Why should murderers be sent to prison if they commit their crime due to a mental disorder just as a suicidal person is? Murderers should undergo a mental evaluation, and should they be found to have a mental disorder they should be ordered to participate in treatment just as a suicidal person would. Murderers found to be of sound mind should be punished for the crimes they have committed because they are aware that their actions are wrong, and did them anyway. This sounds a lot like what you said two paragraphs ago - it kind of sounds like you're repeating yourself when talking about going to prison vs going to a mental ward. Why is this separated from the last paragraph you wrote on this topic? And what specific new points are you trying to make here? Make sure you're always adding new thoughts and new ideas to your paper!
These crimes are both very serious as well as permanent. Neither murder or suicide should be taken lightly and one is not a greater crime than the other. Murder and suicide go hand in hand but often are viewed in a very different light, when maybe they are not so different.. Both are acts revolving around one's self and the desire to obtain some sort of goal, whether it be for better or worse, and often times they may share a similar motivation, or root cause for action, such as mental disorder. These acts are different, but when viewed critically one may see the line between these actions become blurry. You also mentioned you're unhappy with your conclusion... maybe something you could try could be leaving us with something that makes more of an impact. Look at your "definition" essay - you finished with "Would you be willing to kill yourself out of honor, shame, or desperation? Many people have committed suicide, many more have failed, but all are tragic." This leaves the reader really thinking at the end, which is a powerful way to end an essay. Could you try to leave that kind of effect with this essay, too, rather than just finishing with a sentence that summarizes your main points?
Brianna -
This is another huge improvement from the last essay - great job! I can tell you've really made an effort to go into greater detail and explain your arguments much more deeply. The way you organized it this time around is much easier to follow, but there are a few places where I think you'd benefit from going into even more depth. For example, when talking about schizophrenic episodes, why not be a little more specific and go into a little more detail? Maybe describe what a specific episode might be like? Any time you can fit in some sort of story or specific example or anecdote, it can add a ton to your paper. People relate far better to specific anecdotes than they do to general informational talk. Many of the questions I asked you this time around were an attempt to get you to expand even more on your ideas and really defend your claims. The biggest example is when you say that sometimes suicide is justified. When you make a controversial statement like that, it can make your paper extremely interesting, but you have to make sure you REALLY back it up - get your readers to share that belief with you.
One other thing to look at is the way you talk about whether murderers should be evaluated on a mental health level before being punished - you talk about it towards the beginning of the essay, then come back to it when you're talking about the differences between murder and suicide but say almost the exact same thing. If you're making a new point, make sure you aren't repeating a bunch of stuff you already told us or your readers will get disinterested.
I think this essay is really on it's way, it improves hugely every time. When you're working on your final draft, look for more places to add more specific, exciting detail to engage your reader, and don't be afraid pack an emotional punch into it, either. (I mentioned some places in my comments where you could do this - introduction and conclusion, for example.)
-
I really think our discussion about structure helped me with this last draft, I tried to change it up and I don't feel nearly as constricted with my ideas. I would really like to know what you think of my introduction and conclusion as well, I feel like they are still weak points in this paper. I also apologize for not posting on Thursday, but I did my absolute best to get it posted on time. I'm excited to hear what you have to say.
-Brianna
Reflection #2 (RHS March 16 -- 171 March 25)
Rough Draft Argument (posted RHS April 6 -- 171 April 8)
Revision Argument (posted RHS April 13 -- 171 April 15)
Euthanasia is the act of intentionally ending one's life due to pain or to end suffering. Euthanasia is essentially the act of committing suicide, however, there are more dimensions to this idea. What are these dimensions? What do you think are the big differences between euthanasia and suicide? Isn't suicide also "intentionally ending one's life due to pain or to end suffering"? There are also two very opposing sides to the argument on whether euthanasia should be legal or not, including religious arguments, whether it is ethical, and the technicalities behind how to construct its limitations should it become widely legalized. As of yet, euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Montana. Thirty six states have laws prohibiting all acts of assisted suicide, seven states have prohibited assisted suicide under common law, four states, and the District of Columbia, have no specific laws regarding assisted suicide, and do not recognize common law in regard to assisted suicide.Only three states have legalized physician assisted suicide. It is my belief that euthanasia, with appropriate limitations, should become legalized. How can you rework the intro to make it less about euthanasia "facts" and more about why you think it's important/what your opinion is? Remember that this is your argument essay, so it's all about you, and what you're trying to convince us to believe. As a reader, it feels like I'm heading into an objective essay about the history of euthanasia rather than an opinion piece.
Possibly one of the most well known acts of assisted suicide, was the work of Doctor Jack Kevorkian. He gave elderly and terminally ill patients the ability to end their lives according to the patient's wishes by hooking them up to a machine he called a 'thanatron' (death machine). Others were given carbon monoxide via a gas mask, called the 'mercitron' (mercy machine). At this time the act of assisted suicide was illegal and Doctor Kevorkian was charged with second degree homicide. He was released after eight years of his 10-25 year sentence. For his actions he was nicknamed 'Dr. Death.' Kevorkian's actions were not legal, nor did he practice them within any legal guidelines. He claimed to have assisted in the suicides of around one hundred and thirty patients. Were Kevorkian's actions justified? Do you think they were justified? What gives Kevorkian the right to end anyone's life? He's essentially committing murder - is murder okay if the person asks for it? Can a person really ask to be murdered and be justified? He relived the pain of those near death and those suffering from terminal illness. He was quoted as saying, "Dying is not a crime." Dying should not be a crime, unfortunately, only three out of fifty of the United States allow doctor assisted suicide. If "dying is not a crime," why is suicide a crime? Why don't you think it's a crime? If you think suicide is wrong, how can you draw that fine line between suicide and euthanasia - is it really that black and white? Kevorkian was not the first, however, to try and justify euthanasia and the right to die. Euthanasia dates back to Ancient Greece and Rome and
was supported by Socrates, Plato and Seneca the Elder in the ancient world.
The modern debate about euthanasia began in Oregon with the 'Oregon Death with Dignity Act,' which was successfully passed October 27th, 1997. The act allows patients to be prescribed a lethal medicine by their physician. The patients must take the medication themselves and cannot be assisted by any family or physicians. The patients must be adults who are terminally ill. The patients are designated a physician and a counselor to help them decide if this rout is the right one for them. I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction for the rights of terminally ill or elderly patients. What other steps should be taken in the right direction? Do you think more people should have access to lethal medicine, or should it be limited to to terminally ill adults? Why is this a step in the right direction - couldn't this just be the start of a slippery slope that perhaps leads to lethal medicine becoming far too accessible? Could there be a point when people are encouraged to pursue euthanasia because they're no longer "useful" and are more of a hassle than anything else - and would this be considered "okay" or would it be murder? Could these kind of steps encourage suicide and make it seem like suicide is okay - which would be a terrible message to send to children?
The last opposing force for the right for the terminally ill and elderly the die is the religious debate. Some people of faith believe that suicide is a sin, and that the consequences are an eternity in Hell. Many religious people have tried to oppose legislation that goes against their religious beliefs. However, this is not a valid argument because the United States gives us the right to freedom of religion, which means that the religion of one individual should not interfere with the rights, or potential rights of another person who does not share the same belief. People should have the right to make a choice based off of their own personal beliefs, as long as that choice does not infringe on the rights of others. But is it just a religious belief that murder is wrong? It's pretty universally accepted that murder/suicide are both wrong - why is euthanasia an exception? If we start making exceptions like that for when murder & suicide are okay under the right circumstances, won't we be headed down a very dangerous path? Is there a point when people are given too many rights - and rights they don't deserve? Should people be entitled to decide when they should die, or might religious people have a point when they argue that human beings shouldn't be taking control over deciding when lives should end and "playing God"?
Overall I believe that people who are terminally ill, elderly and in a debilitating state should have the right to take their life through humane means provided by a doctor. It is not fair to force a person through immense amounts of pain, mental deterioration, and emotional toil. But at what point can we say a person is going through enough pain that dying is the best option? How is it possible to create an objective way of determining when a person is "sick enough?" Or should anybody be able to have euthanasia as long as they say they are in a "debilitating state?" What constitutes a "debilitating state?" The right to die should be a universal right.
Brianna -
You've picked a wonderfully controversial topic that has a lot of really compelling arguments in both directions - great job in picking one side of the argument and really standing up for what you believe. The number one thing I would suggest to make this paper more engaging and effective is to remember that you're writing an ARGUMENT paper. This isn't a research paper. Your goal is not to give us a bunch of information so that we can decide for ourselves. Your goal is to convince us that euthanasia should be legal. You did a great job presenting the evidence, which is the first step, but now you need to work on the argument part of it. Don't be afraid to fill this with your own opinions - it's all about your opinions. Tell us what you believe, show us the facts, and then convince us that what you believe is right. I've tried to include as many questions as possible that present the alternative view. Hopefully these questions will give you a sense of the kind of arguments you need to defend against as you work on this paper. Think of it as an actual argument with another person - what do they have to say to you? What can you do to defend against what they say? How can you really convince them that you're right?
Think about using the evidence you've already provided in this paper as backup information to support your argument - but your argument is what should really come through! When you are giving opinions, make sure you defend them really thoroughly. For example, you finish the third paragraph with "I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction for the rights of terminally ill or elderly patients." This is a great strong statement, and it was preceded by some really good solid facts - now you just need to stand up for yourself and what you have to say.
I can't wait to see where you go from here!
Matt
And just because:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwacyhwgEto
Final Argument (posted RHS April 20 -- 171 April 23)
Euthanasia is the act of intentionally ending one’s life due to pain or to end suffering. Euthanasia is essentially the act of committing suicide; however, there are more ideas behind this concept. There are also two very opposing sides to the argument on whether euthanasia should be legal or not, including religious perspectives, ethicality, and the technicalities behind how to construct its limitations, should it be legalized. As of yet, euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the US States of Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Thirty six states have laws prohibiting all acts of assisted suicide, and seven states have prohibited acts of assisted suicide under common law; four states, and the District of Columbia, have no specific laws regarding assisted suicide and so not recognize common law in regard to assisted suicide. Only three states have legalized physician assisted suicide. It is my belief that euthanasia, with appropriate limitations, should become legal in the United States. Excruciating pain, memory loss, and terminal illness should not be hardships we are forced to suffer through at the ends of our lives. Suicide and euthanasia are similar, but they also differ in many ways. Opening our eyes to these differences and accepting euthanasia into our legislation will bring true freedom to many suffering from life itself.
Possibly one of the most well-known acts of assisted suicide was the work of Doctor Jack Kevorkian. He have elderly and terminally ill patients the ability to end their lives according to the patient’s wishes by hooking them up to a machine he called a ‘thanatron’ (death machine.) Others were given carbon monoxide via a gas mask, called the ‘mercitron’ (mercy machine.) at this time the act of assisted suicide was illegal and Doctor Kevorkian was charged with second degree homicide. He was released after eight years of his 10-25 year sentence. For his actions he was nicknamed ‘Dr. Death.’ Kevorkian’s actions were not legal, nor did he practice them within any legal guidelines. He claimed to have assisted in the suicides of around one hundred and thirty patients. Were Kevorkian’s actions justified? He relieved the pain of those near death and those suffering from terminal illness. His patients were already near death, they were suffering. I believe his patients received the relief they desperately needed. Kevorkian was quoted as saying, “Dying is not a crime.” Dying should not be a crime, unfortunately; only three out of fifty of the United States allows doctor assisted suicide. Kevorkian was not the first, however, to try and justify euthanasia and the right to die. Euthanasia dates back to Ancient Greece and Rome and was supported by Socrates, Plato, and Seneca the Elder in the ancient world.
The modern debate about euthanasia began in Oregon with the ‘Oregon Death with Dignity Act,’ which was successfully passed October 27th, 1997. The act allows patients to be prescribed a lethal medicine by their physician. The patients must take the medicine by themselves and cannot be assisted by any family or physician. The patients must be adults who are terminally ill or already near death. The patients are designated a physician and a counselor to help them decide if this rout is the right one for them. I believe this legislation is a step in the right direction for the rights of terminally ill and dying patients. Proper counseling and medical assistance is essential for patients seeking to end their lives. Providing guidelines and proper care will ensure that a patient is making the right choice, and also ensures that they will not take matters into their own hands by committing suicide and possibly making their condition worse.
The last opposing force for the right for people to choose when to end their life is the religious opposition to the act of taking one’s own life. Some people of faith believe that suicide is a sin, and that the consequence is an eternity in Hell. Many religious people have tried to oppose legislation that goes against their religious beliefs, however; this is not a valid reason because the United States gives us the right to freedom from religion. This means that the religion of another person cannot infringe of the rights or potential rights of another person not sharing the other’s belief. People should have the right to make a decision based on their own personal beliefs, as long as that choice does not infringe on the rights of others.
Overall I believe that people who are terminally ill, elderly, or are in a debilitating state should have the right to take their life through humane means provided by a doctor. It is not fair to force a person through immense amounts of pain, mental deterioration, and emotional toll. The right to die should be a universal right.
Reflection #3 (posted RHS April 23)